THE RIGHTS OF PARENTS.
[TO TRH EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—It would be interesting to know whether the Bishop of Carlisle (Spectator, March 17th) really considers the State so far entitled to our regard that parents must allow it, as they think, to ruin the souls of their children. The point of the whole controversy is not whether undenominationalism be a good or a bad religion ; nor whether religion gains by being presented as school-work; but whether it is right that a parent should be obliged to hand over his children to have their characters moulded by a person of whose religious opinions he profoundly disapproves. This latest development of religious liberty would have had short shrift in other times. Cromwell, one fears, would rather bare paid ship-money than have seen his children placed under the able tuition of Mr. Hobbes of Malmesbury. The blind pursuit of material efficiency at whatever cost is sure to defeat its own end. When the family life of Britain is gone for ever, we may cast about for artificial stimuli to population and artificial substi- tutes for patriotism. But the heart of the nation will be [It is hardly possible to believe that our correspondent can have read the Bishop of Carlisle's letter. One would imagine that the Bishop bad proposed to annul the Conscience Clause, but, needless to say, the Bishop did nothing of the kind.— En. Spectator.]
Previous page
