THE NONCONFORMIST MANIFESTO.
THE Nonconformists at Manchester have gone in for a manly and intelligible policy. They demand at last rigidly secular education, and that in all Three Kingdoms, and strictly without regard to the wishes of the peoples of two of those kingdoms. If they had not to some extent spoiled that thoroughly manly and revolutionary policy by trying to persuade the country that the Government in breaking with them in this matter is deviating from the steady line of previous development, instead of their breaking from the Government into a fall-blown revolution, we should simply have expressed our admiration of their courage, and pointed out that the appeal is no longer to any ministry, no longer to any Parlia- ment, but to the electors, who are asked to abandon definitively the educational policy of more than thirty years, and become converts to a completely new idea. We do, however, regret that antagonists so worthy of our respect should have attempted to cover their bold strategy by fictitious representations as to the ast. In the resolution moved by Mr. J. J. Stitt, J.P. of Liverpool, on Thursday, the following words occur ;—" 1. Under the Elementary Education Acts sums of money may be paid from the rates for the support of sectarian schools. 2. By the grants in aid of denominational schools, which have been largely and unnecessarily increased, in addition to the payments made from the rates, sectarian organizations for education may be entirely sustained without private subscrip- tions, and, as the result, the education of the people is to a large and increasing extent given into the charge of the clergy of the Church of England and the priests of the Church of Rome. Every ejort having been made to induce the Govern- ment to reconsider a policy which reverses the whole course of modern legislation, this Conference, believing that the cause of religious freedom is of more importance than any ties of party, appeals to the Nonconformists of Great Britain to declare that they will not accept as a satisfactory representative any can- didate for a seat in the House of Commons who will not pledge himself to the amendment of the Education Act, in the sense and to the extent of the propositions adopted by this Conference." Now, considering that " the whole course of modern legisla- tion " on educational matters, until Mr. Forster's Bill was introduced, rested solely on the principle of aiding denomina- tional effort, and that the English Education Act was the first great interruption to that course of legislation ; that then for the first time rate-built schools, managed by men of all sects and parties, and interdicted from teaching the formulae of any religious sect, were established to compete with voluntary schools receiving only fifty per cent. of their means from State grants, the "historical consciousness of the Nonconformists at Manchester cannot be re- garded as scrupulously accurate. Of course, what they would say in justification of this false statement is- that the endowment of religious sects would reverse the course of modern legislation, but as the precise point at issue is whether the Education Policy of Great Britain for the last thirty years has been one of sectarian en- dowment or not, and still more, whether, when grants are made for secular teaching only, and the religious teaching is com- pletely ignored, as it is under Mr. Forster's Act, anything but frantic prejudice could honestly so describe the policy of grants to voluntary schools, we should have thought more highly of Nonconformist candour if some members of the Conference had called in question this gross perversion of historic facts. Nothing is more certain than that the Nonconformists are adopting now a revolutionary policy. They have a perfect right to adopt it. But it is hardly decent to accuse the Government which has deviated from the educational traditions of England only in their own direc- tion of turning its back on the past because it does not join heart and soul in their revolution. This, and our strong condemnation of the tone adopted by many of the speakers,—though not by Mr. Richard, M.P. for Merthyr Tydvil, who was eminently temperate and fair,—towards the wise Liberal statesman responsible for the Education Act, are the only criticisms we have to pass on the tone of the Nonconformist Conference, which, so far as our full reports of the first two days and our rather meagre report of the last day's meetings goes, seems to have been, while it kept off the subject of Mr. Forster, exceedingly manly and good. Any- thing more transparently false than many of the criticisms on Mr. Forster and his policy we have not in our time read. Thus the famous 25th Clause, which gave power to pay the fees of pauper children in denominational schools, was used by some of the speakers to illustrate the extreme Conservative finesse of Mr. Forster. The truth we believe to be that that clause passed without discussion and without dispute. At that time everybody supposed that the denominational schools, as protected by the Conscience Clause, were to be made part and parcel of the educational machinery of the country, and the whole efforts of the Nonconformists were confined to obtain- ing a time-table Conscience Clause for these schools, and to excluding effectually sectarian teaching from the Board schools. The denunciations now heaped on Mr. Forster should in great measure be reserved for the Nonconformists of 1870 themselves. They are wroth with him for not changing as fast as they have changed. It is natural, but unreasonable. This journal, of course, was more than once subjected to severe
criticism, but as far as we know,—we have seen no full report of Mr. Chamberlain's speech on Thursday, —to none of which we have the least right or wish to complain. Mr. Richard was exceedingly lively and good-humoured in his criticisms of the hostile press, and if he dwelt rather more energetically on our sins than on those of our contemporaries, we think we know the reason why :—he knew, as all our readers know, that we at least have not the shadow of a sympathy with Church ascendancy ; that we always support every measure cal- culated to diminish the mischief of that ascendancy ; and that if we support the principle of a National Church itself, we do so from pure sympathy with the people of England, and without one single feeling of anything but regret at the social advantages which the clergy of the Establishment have over the clergy of Nonconformist Churches. The wider the Establishment, so long as it fulfils the purposes of a Church at all, the better we are pleased. Mr. Richard feels this, and hence he is unable to attribute our strong defence of religious teaching as an element in all true educa- tion, to any petty ecclesiastical motive. He is naturally some- what offended by a position he cannot look down upon ; but he is•none the less a very fair and honourable, as well as a very lively and able opponent.
Now as to the policy itself. The Nonconformists have really entered on an undertaking at which Liberals, as Liberals, may well stand aghast, for it is not merely the con- version of England to the principles of pure secular education on which they have determined,—an enterprise in which they may succeed in time, though we hardly think they will ;- but they have further bound themselves by a vow to support no (otherwise Liberal) candidate at the poll (except " under the pressure of great national exigencies," whatever that reserve may be worth), who does not commit himself to this narrow crotchet of theirs ; nor is that all,—they have further bound themselves to inflict, by the help of Parliament, the same system on Scotland and Ireland, even though the all but un- animous conviction of those peoples should be adverse to the theory. We have quoted above the words of the resolution relating to the repudiation of all Liberals not inclined to bind themselves to secular education,—a resolution subsequently modified by the insertion of the proviso " except under the pressure of great national exigencies,"—and we must say that we are simply amazed that a Conference which accepted that resolution should find fault with us for talking of their dicta- torial and domineering policy. Here are we, hearty Liberals, in favour of any amount of popular reform, anxious for the complete nationalization of University resources, anxious for the full opening of all careers to the people, anxious for the admission of working-men to Parliament, anxious for some reform of the House of Peers which should bring it into substantial harmony with the Commons, anxious for the abolition of all the special privileges of the rich, anxious above everything for the education, health, and happiness of the people, told that we are not practically Liberals at all, that our Liberalism is not worth a straw and had better be treated as Conservatism, if we happen to think that religious teaching, well guarded against pro- pagandism, is one of the essentials of true education 1 Words can hardly express a policy of arrogant dictation more accurately than this resolve of the Nonconformists to vote, except under the pressure of great national emergencies, for no Liberal who differs from them on this minute point, and to regard it as the sole criterion of Liberal faith. What it means is simply this, that nothing is to go on in the way of ,Liberal reform till this great object of theirs is attained,— that every other object, except in a case of great national emer- gency, is to be sacrificed to it. And what makes the matter worse is the proposed intention of the Conference to ride down by English votes the local Scotch and Irish opinion on this utterly local matter. To be in the Nonconformist sense a true Liberal, you must not only be for Secular Education pure and simple in England, but you must be prepared to force the same system by English votes upon a reluctant Ire- land and Scotland. To be a true Liberal, then, you must reject the first article of every true Liberal creed,—that on matters of locally restricted interest the central power shall not dictate to the local, but shall leave the locality to judge for itself. You might almost as well insist on a Liberal Catholic's accepting the authority of the Vatican Council as a tad of his Liberalism. We hold, then, that the Noncon- formist Conference has far more than justified our gravest charges against the League ; for we never even dreamt of their going so far as to demand of 'their members that they iihould .not only accept secular education, but accept it as the very kernel and pith of all true Liberalism, and force it upon Ireland and Scotland by English votes as well. It would be hard to discover a policy of more Bismarckian audacity.
The other great feature we notice in the proceedings of the Manchester Conference is one we have been compelled to notice too frequently in the proceedings of the Birmingham League before,—the curious and utter absence of all con- scious reference to the one great object of all education, the good of the children to be educated. Now, if we know our- selves at all, this is the one sole point we have had in view throughout our unfortunate difference with the Noncon- formists. We not only care nothing for Church ascendancy, but as we have said already, we care a great deal for its removal. But we do from our hearts desire to see education efficient with the children of the very poor, and most of all with those whose parents, instead of educating, too often degrade them. This is the one point that no Nonconformist ever seems to think of. He insists on the value of Sunday- schools,—those too often dismal and narrow sectarian agencies, —and he insists on the voluntary agency of the pastor and the parent ; but the child who has no pastor, and a parent who is the worst of pastors,—a pastor in evil,—may, for him, get on as he can. One thing he knows,—such a child may be taughtanythingin a national school except the knowledge which opens the heart and soul, as well as lifts the imagination far above the highest limit of any secular lesson. And yet there is nothing more remarkable than the cultivating effect of Biblical knowledge thoroughly taught by efficient masters. It is, as we have often said, almost the sole access to universal history manageable in popular education. With- out it Mr. Spurgeon himself would not have had any large objects of interest in visiting even France and Italy. But all this is a matter of no moment whatever to the Non- conformists, as compared with their resolution that the Church shall gain no more social advantages over Dissent. None regret these social advantages more than we do, but we are not prepared, and we do not believe England is prepared, to get rid of them at the cost of the children of England. Nothing can be more curiously artificial than the Nonconformists' own system. So artificial is the divorce on which they insist between secular and religious teaching, that they were com- pelled absolutely to pass a resolution that no schoolmaster of a public elementary school ought to be allowed to teach a religious class, in the school buildings, even after school hours, —that is, that the teacher must in that capacity absolutely dissever himself from all religious conviction. What in the world is more unnatural than to veto the teacher's employ- ment of the influence naturally gained with children by character and knowledge, for the purpose of producing moral and religious impressions V Just the most•fit person in the world to make these impressions is the one to whom it is to be interdicted. What this practically involves, is the handing over to that sacerdotal order (inclusive, of course, of Dissenting ministers), whom the Nonconformists profess so much to dread, of any religious teaching that the children get at all. We can conceive nothing more mischievous and unnatural.
But the die is cast. The Nonconformists have appealed to the people of England, and to the people of England they must go. No Government could embody such a policy in any Parliamentary measure without an appeal to the people. We only hope that when that appeal is fairly made, it will be clearly understood that what the Nonconformists desire is a still wider separation between religion and life ;—a final taking of religious teaching out of the hands of lay teachers, and, virtually no doubt, an absolute surrender of it into professional hands.
Previous page
