TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE NONCONFORMISTS AND THE BILL.
WILL the Nonconformists be wise and patriotic if they insist on their pound of flesh ? That is a question which we wish to ask in no hostile and no rhetorical spirit, but simply with the desire to arrive at a national and comprehensive settlement of the education question. We have no sympathy with the unfair and violent manner in which the Educa- tion Bill has been attacked. Though we hold that in many particulars it does not do justice to the claims of the Voluntary schools and of the Established Church, we are convinced that it was in no sense meant to be a vindictive measure, and that it is grossly unfair to accuse Mr. Birrell of cynicism on the one hand, or of a malignant desire to injure the Church of England on the other. We do not, as our readers know, consider that his solution is the best solution possible ; but we are sure that his intention was an honest one, and we cannot but condemn the intemperate style in which the controversy has been conducted up till now, though we think we perceive in the public utterances of the extreme opponents of the Bill during the last few days a better tone and temper.
In asking the Nonconformists, in whose hands the matter lies, not to insist on their pound of flesh—we cannot doubt that the Government will be perfectly ready to make very large concessions if only they are permitted to do so by their Nonconformist followers—we do not wish to suggest that what is proposed in the Bill is in the abstract unreasonable, or can be rightly described as doing violence to the consciences or to the legal rights of Churchmen or of Roman Catholics. It is not fair to describe the Bill as one of confiscation, or as the establishment of one special form of religion—i.e., the Nonconformist—at the expense of the State, and we admit that with certain modifications of detail, such as we suggested a fortnight ago, the Bill might, with the goodwill of the Church, be made the basis of a national settlement. Such an admission, however, by no means, in our opinion, makes it either right or reasonable in the highest sense that the Nonconformists should insist on voting down all opposition and demanding, as we have said, their full pound of flesh. We have already seen what evils come from taking up such an attitude in a matter like that of our national system of education. In 1902 the Church was in a position to claim her pound of flesh, and she claimed it in a Bill• which we thought then, and still think, was in the abstract perfectly reason- able and did no real violence to any man's conscience. Churchmen said, and, from their point of view, said truly, that their Bill was not an attack on Nonconformity, and that those who professed to find in it grievous wrong and injustice were so unreasonable that their protests might be, and ought to be, ignored. Look at the result of thus preaching reason to men who, rightly or wrongly, believe they are being treated unjustly in a matter of religion. The event showed that it was impossible to rely upon abstract reason, and that what the Government of the day and the leaders of the Church should have said had they been prudent and far-seeing was something of this kind :—• It is useless to take advantage of our numerical strength in Parliament to impose an educa- tion policy which, however reasonable and fair per se, is opposed by a large section of the nation. The question is not the intrinsic goodness of our policy, but whether we can get our opponents to admit that it , is fair, and to co-operate in the settlement. If they will not do that, it will prove unwise for us to proceed with our scheme, for it can only end in confusion and ill-feeling. The moment the political pendulum swings the other way, and the Nonconformists are in a position of power, the whole of our work will be undone.' In other words, the Church and the supporters of the Voluntary schools made the mistake of thinking that if abstract right and justice give a. man or a body of men the right to a pound of flesh, they will be wise to exact it. We would appeal, then, to the Nonconformists not to follow the example of the Church and commit so fatal a mistake. We would ask them to remember that their duty is not to consider what they have the power to do, or even what can be done without a violation of abstract right and justice, but to give due weight to what those who are in the minority at 'the present moment regard as a violation of their rights and con- sciences. In cases like that with which we are now confronted it is useless to show a man that he has no real conscientious grievance. It is rather the part of statesmanship to ask whether, given certain circum- stances, he will or will not consider that he has such a grievance.
In view of the premisses we have just stated, we shall no doubt be asked by moderate Nonconformists—who we gladly admit are in the majority—what practical suggestions we have to offer. They will tell us, and tell us truly, that some measure must be passed by Parliament in regard to the education question, and that the Nonconformist grievances created by the determination of the Church to have her pound of flesh in 1902 must be dealt with. We agree. For though the existing situation has been declared, and in a certain sense rightly declared, to be an impasse, some way through has got to be discovered. We agree also that, the present Bill having been introduced, it is hopelessto expect the Government to withdraw it and substitute a wholly different solution,—such, for example, as a measure merely making the majority of managers in all Voluntary schools popularly elected. The Bill must go forward, and all that can now be done is to endeavour to obtain certain modifications of its provisions. What we ask is that Nonconformists should approach the amendments put forward by the minority in the spirit which we have ventured to suggest,—that is, in the spirit not of those who demand their pound of flesh, but of those who realise that it is most desirable not to create grievances of conscience, reasonable or unreasonable, well- founded or ill-founded. On the introduction of the Bill we suggested that the Government should abandon the clause under which teachers in transferred non-provided schools are prevented from giving religious instruction on the two days when facilities for denominational education are allowed. Next, we held that facilities for denomina- tional teaching should be given, not merely in those schools which were once Voluntary schools, but in all provided schools, and, of course, that those facilities should be extended to all denominations. In the case of extended facilities, we held that it would be far better not to count children or parents, but to allow the local education authority to grant extended facilities wheneier they were convinced that to grant them to a particular• denomination would be just to the children of the denomi- nation concerned, and would inflict no injury on the minority, owing to accommodation being available else- where. We pointed out also that the proposal to deal separately with Wales should be abandoned. Further consideration of the subject leads us to believe that the proposal in regard to the Commission of three to deal with trust-deeds requires fundamental alteration. We are confident that the proposal made by Mr. Birrell in this respect was in no sense inspired by any desire to rob the Church of her schools, but merely by a wish to provide a cheaper, quicker, and easier machinery than that to be, found in the Courts of Law. Since, however, the proposal has caused so much alarm and uneasiness among Church. people, we think it should be reconsidered. The right, of Englishmen to appeal to the ordinary Courts of, the realm, and not to Courts specially established, is one which should not be interfered with unless the interference receives something like unanimous consent. We note that Sir Edward Russell, in a letter to' Monday's Times, which has, we understand, given considerable satisfaction to many Churchmen, suggests that, besides allowing the teachers to give denomina- tional teaching in the new provided schools, the re- ligious teaching should be in the ordinary hours of' compulsory attendance, and also that the tea.chers in the new provided schools should be required to be members of the denomination whose tenets are specially taught. We should not ourselves have yen- tured to make a suggestion so fundamental as the last, but coming as it does from so strong a supporter of the present Government as Sir Edward Russell, we feel no hesitation in endorsing it, and recommending it to the serious consideration of the Nonconformists to whom we are appealing. Might it not at any rate be possible to require that in the new provided, once Voluntary, schools a certain proportion of the teachers should be chosen from the denomination to which the freehold of the scheol buildings belongs ?
We have one more suggestion to make, a suggestion which we think might be useful as conferring greater elasticity,— and in a nation like ours elasticity of treatment is always a matter of immense value. Might it not be possible to give any Voluntary school that so desired, the right, as it were, to contract itself out of our localised system of education and to return to the status qno ante 1902? That is, we suggest that it should be enacted that any Voluntary school might abandon all local rate-aid,, and obtain merely a Government grant in respect of the secular subjects taught in the school. Care would, of course, have to be taken that no grants were given except to schools which reached a high standard of efficiency, and it would also, no doubt, be necessary to provide that no school would be allowed to contract itself out if it were the only school in a district. In other words, our suggestion would be an alternative to the four-fifths clause. In towns the managers and trustees of Voluntary schools would then have three alternatives. Either they might make their bargain with the local authority and obtain facilities, or they might make use of the four-fifths clause, or, finally, they might appeal to the richer members of their denomination to provide sufficient funds to allow the school to con- tract itself out of the Act and return to the status quo ante 1902. To have recourse to this third alternative large subscriptions would of course be necessary ; but where they could be obtained we do not see that there need be any objection to the action indicated. At any rate, there should be none from the Nonconformist point of view, though possibly some Churchmen might consider that the funds thus raised, and 'therefore of necessity withdrawn from other Church work, might be better employed.
Previous page
