VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS AND THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.
COLONEL PRENDERGAST has lately made a speech on elementary education, which contains more com- mon-sense than dozens of speeches on the same subject which are made every l day by people who ought to know what they are talking about, but apparently either do not, or else think it expedient to let their knowledge be unused. The Elementary Education question really lies in a nut- shell. Since 1870, voluntary schools have been making a very good fight for life. They have maintained 'their position and kept up their numbers. But the fight is one that must necessarily grow harder every year. The standard of elementary education is continually rising ; and it does not rest with the voluntary schools to say what that standard shall be. This function lies partly with the Education Department, which fixes it directly for all schools, and partly with the School Boards, which fix it directly for their own schools, and indirectly for the voluntary schools. If a voluntary school is to live, it must attract children, and if it is to attract children, it must give them as good a secular educa- tion as the neighbouring Board-schools. So long as school-fees lasted, something might .be done in this way by making a voluntary school cheaper. It was very little, because the School Boards, with the rates to fall back upon, could always, if they chose, under- sell the voluntary schools ; but it was something. Now, however, that schools are practically free, or on the high- road to becoming free, the only thing that ordinarily determines the parent in his choice of a school—where the opportunity for choice exists—is in which school his child will be taught most ; and the consequence is that wherever the Board-schools lead, the voluntary schools have to follow. The only weapon which the supporters of voluntary schools have at their command in the struggle to keep down expenses is to side with the economical party among the ratepayers, and to try and starve the Board-schools. The effect of this policy is to present the Church as the opponent of educational progress— a character inconsistent with all her best traditions, and fatal to her influence among the working classes. Yet unless the cost of Board-schools can be reduced, or the subscription-lists of voluntary schools be increased, the struggle must become more and more unequal. Volun- tary schools will inevitably become fewer and relatively less efficient, until, by degrees, the majority of them will be absorbed in the School-Board system.
The credit of being the first to realise the critical posi- tion of voluntary schools rests with the Roman Catholic Bishops. Some months back they put out a very wise and statesmanlike outline of a policy, the main principles of which were the retention by voluntary-school managers of the whole cost of religious instruction, and the admission to a proportionate share in the School-rate of every public elementary school whose efficiency in secular instruction shall satisfy the Education Department. The rate is to bear the whole cost of secular instruction, with proper safe- guards as to its application ; but the management of Roman Catholic schools is to remain in Roman Catholic hands in consideration of their keeping up the school-buildings and bearing the cost of the religious instruction. The gain to the ratepayers of this plan would be twofold,— first, they would be spared the cost of providing school- buildings for the children now in attendance at Roman Catholic schools ; secondly, they would have the advantage of choosing between different types of school whichever of them shall give the best secular education. No one who knows how easily schools can fall into a rut when the stimulus of competition is withdrawn will undervalue this advantage. It was a further merit of this policy that it was capable of adoption by any religious body which believed in the importance of religious teaching in ele- mentary schools. What the Roman Catholics asked for their schools, the members of the Church of England might equally ask for their schools. They, too, had. school-buildings to offer,—the only difference being that they had them in much larger numbers. They, too, wanted to throw the cost of secular instruction on the rates, and to retain in their own hands the management of their own schools. Never, surely, was there a better opportunity for making common cause with those whose interests were identical with their own, and who could at the same time command a kind of political support which, in dealing with a Liberal Government, was of special value.
Unfortunately, the decision as to what use should be made of this great and exceptional opportunity, fell to the Arch- bishop of Canterbury, and the only course that seems to have occurred to him—at all events, the only course he thought it worth while to take—was to throw it away. His answer to the appeals, publicly and privately made to him by many of his own clergy, was given at a great Anglican meeting, and it was expressed in these words: "Church of England people ought not to have any alliance with Roman Catholics." Though "Church of England people" and. Roman Catholics want the same thing, and can only get what they want by employing the same methods, and will employ them to much better purpose if they employ them in common, the Archbishop of Canter- bury will not hear of their working together. It is fair, however, to say that his Grace had this much excuse for his refusal, that he cannot, or will not, see that Church schools are in any danger. Why should he ally himself with Roman Catholics to get aid from the rates, when no aid from the rates is needed ? In this best of all possible Churches, the prospects of voluntary schools are so brilliant that they cannot be .im- proved. Subscriptions flow in from every quarter until school managers are at a loss how to expend them, and the demands of the Education Department only serve to quicken the liberality of Churchmen. There are some points, however, and this is one of them, on which the value of testimony decreases with the dignity of the wit- ness. As regards the prosperity of voluntary schools, we would rather have the evidence of a dozen working clergy- men than of the whole bench of Bishops. We have looked about pretty widely to see if such evidence is forthcoming, but we have looked to no purpose. On all sides there rise complaints of the hopelessness of the position, of the growing difficulty of meeting the demands with which school managers are familiar, and of the impossibility of meeting the enlarged demands that are being made from all quarters. Whether, therefore, we judge by a priori probabilities, or by the testimony of experts, the conclusion is the same. As regards the condition and prospects of voluntary schools, the Archbishop of Canterbury is entirely mistaken.
Colonel Prendergast thinks that this error of the Arch- bishop's may be retrieved. His opinions have been repu- diated, he says, by "the leaders of the pick of his co-religionists, and in proof of this he quotes from an article in the Guardian which certainly told the Arch- bishop some wholesome truths. But we are not so sanguine as Colonel Prendergast on this head. If, indeed, there were any chance of the Archbishop of Canterbury return- ing upon himself, and advising the Church of England to make a strong and united effort to obtain its proper share of the School-rate for every Church school, we should not think that the game was up. But we see no sign of this, and from the process which Colonel Prendergast describes as the tail wagging the head, we expect very little. If the clergy were united in their demand for rate-aid, it would be different. In that case, we suspect the Archbishop would not be long in coming round to it. But the clergy are not united on this point. On the contrary, every man among them has his psalm or his doctrine, his scheme or his policy. It is a perfect chaos, and to educe order out of chaos is more than any newspaper can hope for. The Archbishop's mistake was in ever letting this Babel of suggestions loose. He should have led instead of following, have gone in front instead of bring- ing up the rear. If, within a week of the declaration of the Roman Catholic Bishops—supposing that it was im- possible for him to make a similar declaration in advance —he had put out a similar declaration setting out the plain justice of a demand for a proportionate share in the rates for all satisfactory elementary schools, the great majority of the clergy would have followed him, and the whole aspect of the educational future would have been different. Whether there is still time for him to do this we do not know ; but that this is the only expedient that has any chance of uniting Churchmen in -behalf of a definite educational policy, we have no doubt at all.
Previous page
