BISHOP ULLATHORNE ON EDUCATION.
WE are not quite slue that, from the point of view of mere policy, Bishop Ullathorne was wise in calling together the Catholics of Birmingham on Monday night to protest against the scheme of the National Education League, and to support the present system of Denominational education in England. As far as we can judge, the main strength of the League in the middle-class,—we do not say in the working-class, —is far less attachment to the principle involved, than a latent feeling that if carried, it would give us a better logical stand- ing-ground for refusing the Catholic demand for Denomina- tional education in Ireland. There is no longer any dispo- sition to inflict political disabilities on Roman Catholics. But there is growing up a very strong fear of Roman Catholic encroachment, and an almost nervous wish to find a tenable ground for refusing their next claim without incurring the appearance of restoring religious inequality. The cause for this is, no doubt, in part the fault of the Irish Catholic priest- hood itself, with Cardinal Cullen at its head, for no one can assert that his Eminence or the hierarchy under him have as yet given the active and energetic support to the Ministry 'that has disestablished the Protestant Church, which it -might fairly have expected. The unique conduct of such men as Bishop Moriarty and Dean Mawe stands out quite in relief against the lukewarm resistance to Fenianism of -the mass of the priesthood, and the active support given to it, without ecclesiastical censure or interference, by such priests as the eloquent Father O'Dwyer. In part, also, the fresh jealousy of Roman Catholicism is mere increased distrust of all priesthoods, which, of course, operates with double force against -the most exclusive and best organized priesthood in the world. And in part, it is caused by the rapid spread of Ultramontane -views in the Roman Catholic Church and the curious panic caused by the summons of an (Ecumenical Council to meet in 'the Vatican. But, at all events, it is a fact that all the Protestant jealousies caused by the disestablishment of the Irish Protestant Church, and all the reluctant adhesions given to that just measure, are likely to compensate themselves for their recent chagrin by uniting in resisting the demand for Deno- minational education in Ireland. And we suspect that not a few of the warmest supporters of the Birmingham scheme are animated by the feeling that, if carried, it will strengthen the hands of the Government in resisting any such change in Ireland. 'The partial adhesion which seems to have been given to the secular principle on the part of the Scotch Free Church is due, we doubt not, in some measure, to this arriere pense'e as to the Irish campaign. And assuming this to be so, it is obvious that the Birmingham scheme will not be the less warmly supported, if it becomes evident that it will not only prepare an efficient weapon with which to resist the Roman Catholic claims in Ireland, but strike a blow at the much less important body of English Roman Catholics as well. It is certainly worthy of remark that the Times, which, till Bishop Ullathorne spoke, had been discouraging the Birmingham League, and throwing its weight into the scale of the Manchester Union, came out on Thursday with an attack on his speech very nearly tantamount to a change of side.
For our own parts, we protest warmly against this half-con- fessed wish of Protestants to force on the people of Ireland a sys- tem of education which is unpopular with the majority—and we will always maintain that the true test of the wish of the majority is the votes of the Irish Catholic Members, whether they have been elected by the influence of the priesthood or not ; for if not, no one would deny it, sill if they are elected through that influence, it is clear that that influence is paramount with the people. And we protest still more strongly against the almost unmanly policy of allowing the oppor- tunity for a clever political manceuvre in Ireland to bias our judgment as to the wisest and soundest educational policy for England. We are very well aware that it is hard to give the Roman Catholic Church real equality on
religious matters with other Churches, without giving it something more than equality. By its very essence it is imperious, and claims a share in all the affairs of life. It is more a polity than a Church. And to give a polity equality with a Church is apt, unless statesmen are very careful, to turn out very like giving it predominance. But still it is a problem we have got to solve somehow. And we feel no manner of doubt that every restriction invented expressly for Roman Catholics really does not diminish but enhance the power of Roman Catholicism,—that every restriction removed, really leaves the Roman Catholic laity at greater liberty to settle their own concerns with the priesthood, and leas likely to regard absolute self-identification with that priest- hood as a patriotic and political, much more even than a religious, obligation. If the extension of the denominational scheme is good in itself, then we ought to consider it only an additional advantage that it is as acceptable to the Irish Roman Catholics as the unsectarian ' or secular system is the reverse. If it be not good in itself, even then it ought to be counted as one real disadvantage in adopting the other scheme that the Roman Catholics excessively dislike it. We fear the feeling with most Liberals is too much the other way,—that they count the offence to the Roman Catholics as an advantage, and the favour of the Roman Catholics as an offence.
But while Bishop Ullathome's position seems to us not only natural in him, but, from his point of view, almost inevitable, we cannot but point out the injustice of which he is, in parts of his speech, guilty to the National Education League. He speaks of the League as wishing to drive all children into the "godless" schools, whether their parents approve of them or not, and this by legal compulsion. Now, the League has never proposed, and has certainly never meant to propose, to compel parents to select one school rather than another for theirchildren, so long as the school selected is certified by State inspectors to be up to the mark in its secular instruction. Yes, but,' Bishop Ullathorne seems to say, though we may be allowed to keep our religious schools, and though Catholic children may come to them, yet we shall have to compete with free schools, and, therefore, have to make our own schools gratuitous if we are to have a chance of keeping the poorest children ; and then, besides having all this fresh pecuniary burden, we shall have to pay the rates for municipal schools which no Catholic children will use.' That is, of course, a very legitimate objection ; but it only amounts to this,—that in a country which is not Roman Catho- lic, Roman Catholics will be at much greater expense in provid- ing for the proper religious education of their children than they would be if the country were Roman Catholic. That is a misfortune for them, but it is not only not persecution, it is not in any sense to be named with such a grievance as driv- ing Roman Catholic parents to send their children against their will into "godless" schools. If the Roman Catholics do not wish to stimulate the silly and ignoble jealousy of Roman- ism, and secret pleasure in mortifying Romanists, which seems to animate some Protestants,—they should be sedulously fair in their own representations. Now, Bishop Ullathorne is not fair when he speaks of this incidental effect of rate-built " godless " schools in adding to the pecuniary burdens of Catholics, as if it were a persecution of Catholic consciences. What is there in it that can compare in grievance with the special pecuniary burden which Quakers incur in paying taxes for the support of an Army and Navy of which they could not properly avail themselves for the defence of their country if the matter rested with them, nay, of which, even for others, they positively disapprove Of course, peculiarity of faith always entails some special burden or other, either some payment towards purposes which are disapproved by those who hold that faith, or some special inability on their part to obtain the full advantages of such payments as are made. This is no excuse for crying out so lustily, Persecution r It is only a reason for contending, so far as possible, for any better arrangement which can be discovered.
Bishop Ullathorne should remember, when he cries out against these " godless " schools proposed by the Birmingham National League,—that to a Protestant nation, the difference is exceedingly slight between giving secular education in common, and then allowing the various denominational teachers to use the school at given extra-hours for religious instruction, and giving denominational religious education in school-hours, from which all children whose parents object to it are allowed to absent themselves. To Roman Catholics, who may have rules (such as Cardinal Cullen described the other day) that the scholars in all classes shall raise a prayer to the Holy Spirit every half-hour, and who rely greatly on the pictorial
inculcation of religious faith, the difference between denomina- tional education with a conscience clause for objectors, and secular education with denominational classes oat of school hours, may seem very great indeed. But to Protestants it is not so ; and a Protestant nation, though it should always endeavour to meet the views of the Roman Catholics it con- tains, must obviously solve its own educational problems with a view to the wants of the majority, and not to the wants of the minority.
We say this while quite agreeing with Dr. Ullathorne in objecting to absolutely free schools, and preferring, on the whole, the careful extension of the present system to the transfer of all the primary schools to the municipal bodies. But it is really not a matter for outcry on either side, but for candid deliberation as to the comparative efficiency of the two methods. In any case, we take it, some schools must be provided, and provided by a compulsory rate, where no good denominational schools are in existence or forthcoming, and on these new schools it will be impossible to impress a denominational character. Whether the present denominational schools shall continue to flourish in the hands of the present managers, will ultimately depend, we hope, on the energy and discretion with which they are managed, and their comparative popularity as compared with the new rate- built schools in those districts where at present the educational wants of the people are not adequately provided for. Thus the two systems will probably continue to exist for some years side by idle, and the victory will depend on their relative educational efficiency. In the meantime, we heartily condemn both the evident wish of some Protestants to turn educational reform into a sectarian weapon for annoying the Roman Catholics, and the exaggerated tone of acrimony in which the Roman Catholics describe as " godless " an educational system which would, in fact, simply separate altogether, after the ordinary Protestant fashion, the religious and the secular teaching, leaving the former to be given, in turn, by the different religious sects out of school-hours. If it be de- spicable and ungenerous in Protestants to be greedy of chances for vexing the Roman Catholics, it is unfair and unreasonable in the Roman Catholics to expect that considerations which -seldom affect Protestants in the secular part of their education at all, should be regarded as of the first importance in discuss- ing a national system of education, solely because they are of very great moment to the handful of English Roman Catholics.
Previous page
