SIR JOHN GORST AND MR. LLOYD GEORGE.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR.") SIR,—One expects the Spectator to understand, and not to- misrepresent, the point of view of its opponents. Your article with the above heading in the Spectator of April 23rd is most unfair to Nonconformists. You say : " The Noncon- formists have the best of it in Board-schools because there they have a religion taught at the public expense, which is exactly that in which they believe and would teach in their- own schools." The religion taught in Board-schools is no more Methodist or Baptist or Unitarian than it is Anglican. Nonconformists have to provide chapels and Sunday-schools to teach their own particular tenets to the children who attend Board-schools just as Anglicans have in similar cir- cumstances. If this is a grievance at all it is just as much a Nonconformist as a Church grievance. If it be a grievance that parents cannot have their religion taught to their children at the public expense, it is a grievance common to all Churches equally, and justice requires that no religions dogmas shall be taught as in Board- schools, or that all shall be taught. Surely the Methodist has as much right to have his religion taught in public schools as the Churchman has. But in addition, Noncon- formists have, as you admit, a more serious grievance. Not only must they provide for the religions teaching of their children whilst the Churchman has it provided for him by the State, but he is compelled to send his children to Church. schools where doctrines are taught in which he does not believe. This is not the sentimental grievance which Sir John. Gorst seems to suppose. I think it would be described as a. real grievance if Anglican children were compelled to attend schools where Methodist or Roman Catholic doctrines were taught. Take the other grievance referred to by Mr. Lloyd George. " I doubt," says Sir John Gorst, "whether there are many managers of Church schools who would reject a promising Nonconformist boy or girl for the position of pupil teacher." Perhaps not if the boy or girl in question promised to attend church. But there is the fact that in some eight thousand schools almost wholly maintained by public money no Nonconformist has the slightest chance of obtaining the position of head teacher or assistant teacher. At the same time, Anglicans, who have a monopoly of the posts in these eight thousand schools, have also equal chances with Noncon- formists for similar positions in Board-schools. I am inclined to think that it would be felt as a very real grievance it Church masters and mistresses were excluded from Board- schools. Nonconformists are as conscious as Sir John Gorst of the shortcomings of our present system of national educa- tion. But it is scarcely a logical reply to one who complains that certain classes are suffering a wrong, to tell him that the nation is suffering under a still greater wrong. Noncon- formists have reason to believe that if their wrongs were redressed, a long step would be taken in the improvement of elementary education. There is a closer connection than Sir John Gorst seems to imagine between ecclesiastical pre- dominance and educational inefficiency.—I am, Sir, &c., 6 Wenlock Terrace, York, April 25th. E. T. WILKINSON.
To THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—Are you not rather unfair (I am sure unconsciously)) to Mr. Lloyd George in your article in the Spectator' of April 23rd P A. public school may be under local representa- tive management without the establishment of a School Board in every village. Mr. Lloyd George would, I imagine, he- abundantly satisfied if a School Board were established for- every Union. And such a Board might well be empowered to recognise the country clergyman as manager where he is efficient By all means let us get rid of small village School
Boards, but let us preserve "local representative manage- ment." Again, Mr. Lloyd George complains that in country schools Nonconformist children have no chance of being employed as pupil teachers." That is, so far as my experience goes, untrue. But if he had said that when so employed they were absolutely debarred by the rules of the National Society from rising in their profession in those schools, he would have said the simple truth. Nor are they as a role encouraged even to be pupil teachers. In conclusion, let me thank you heartily for what you say about pupil teachers. The Church of England is not " about to make " the great mistake of associating the maintenance of -Church school with a low educational standard. It is making it every day. In spite of the Majority Re- port of the Royal Commission of 1888, which said, " We are of opinion that existing schools should gradually, but within reasonable limits of time, be brought up to the higher estimate of the space required for school accommo-
• dation," in too many national schools, even in populous parishes, no such effort is being made. The result is that managers welcome exemption standards in order to have room for those who stay, who are, of course, more numerous now since Mr. Acland raised the age. Moreover, only last week at our Diocesan Congress, the question was asked, -4" Supposing that at the time the managers filled in their form " applying for the Special Aid Grant, "they contemplated the allocation of the grant to providing a larger staff. By the time the grant came a chimney might have been blown down, and repairs might be urgently needed. Because the managers had not happened to mention that repairs were one of the objects of the grant, it could not be used for that object. Could anything be more absurd ? " I regret to say that the -Congress blamed the Education Department for being strict even to this extent. You are doing the Church a very great -service by insisting that, if Church schools are run at all, 'they should be done well.—I am, Sir, &c.,
The Paddocks, Swaffham, April 24th. H. LEE WARNER,.
Previous page
