THE RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY AT THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD.
[To THZ EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] Sin,—In thanking you for your article of last week, which will afford considerable moral support to those of us who think that the "majority report" offers the only practical solution of this stormy religious question, may I point out an error of fact into which the writer of the article has fallen P In discussing the three "minority reports" he says that "the first is that of the High Church party, moved by the Rev. C. J. Ridgeway and seconded by Sir Cameron Gull." In reality both wings of the Church party on the Board are united on the majority circular, of which you approve. When Mr. Ridgeway's report was moved in the Sohool Management Committee, it was supported by Mr. Lyulph Stanley and the whole of his Nonconformist, Unitarian, and Secularist follow- ing, only one member of the Church party besides the mover voting for it. After its rejection, on the motion that the majority report be recommended to the Board, Mr. Ridgeway voted alone in the minority with Mr. Stanley and his friends. It may interest your readers to know that the majority report was finally drafted after a consultation between the leading High Churchmen and Low Churchmen on the Board, and that at least one Nonconformist has since given his adhesion to it. The final struggle will take place at the Board iteelf after the Christmas holidays.—I am, Sir, &o., A MEMBER OP THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD,
Previous page
