TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH'S BILL. THERE is a widespread feeling throughout the country that a compromise, or, as we should prefer to say, an agreement, is about to be reached in regard to the education controversy. Wherever men congregate—in clubs, railway carriages, omnibuses, markets, shops, business centres— the talk runs : "They seem to be going to settle the education question at last." Unfortunately, however, it does not follow that because a popular expectation exists it will be gratified. The public desire is undoubtedly for a settlement; but here is a question where the pressure of public opinion operates with great difficulty. "The bigots of the iron time" are on both sides peculiarly impervious to public opinion. Though party politicians are no doubt willing enough to listen as a rule to the voice of the majority, they are in this case more inclined to fear the wrath of well-drilled and well-organised minorities. Again, for one-half of the party politicians the very eager- ness of the country for a settlement acts as an incentive to prevent that settlement. The more partisan section of the Opposition realise that if the Government could manage to pass a Bill which would produce an agreement on the education problem, they would gain thereby a very great deal of kudos, and consequently of popular gratitude. On the other band, failure to reach an agreement must be a great source of weakness and embarrassment to the Ministry. As the Tapers and Tadpoles put it : "The Government are in a very tight place over the education question, and it is not the business of the Opposition to help them out of their difficulties, but rather to keep them there." In these circumstances, it is imperative that moderate-minded men on both sides of the controversy should do their best to impress upon all politicians amenable to their influence that this is a problem which the nation is determined shall be settled, and that party considerations shall not be allowed to predominate. Lord Rosebery spoke most wisely when he referred to the sense of shame which is creeping over the people of this country at our failures to find a solution. That sense of sham&is, we are convinced, very widespread, and we trust that it will induce the electors to regard as public enemies those who, either from party craft or sectarian fanaticism, are using or favouring obstructive methods.
One of the difficulties felt by moderate men at the present time is to obtain an answer to the question,—" What can I do to further a settlement ? " In our opinion, the best specific answer to this question—and a specific answer is the only one worth having in the circumstances—is, "Support the Archbishop of Canterbury in his endeavours for peace." We have no hesitation in saying that the speech made by the Archbishop in the House of Lords on Monday during the debate on the Bishop of St. Asaph's Bill went further in the direction of an agreement than any- thing that has yet been said on the problem. If we could imagine the Archbishop of Canterbury armed with plenary powers by Parliament to solve the education question, acting, not merely as a Churchman, but as a trustee for the general interests of religion and education throughout the country, we believe that he could and would produce a solution which would be acceptable to ninety-nine per cent. of the people of this country,—a solution which would be perfectly just to the Nonconformists as well as to Church people, though it would give neither side the full pound of flesh which they may be able to prove they have a right to claim. The Archbishop, as his speech in the House of Lords showed, and as, indeed, all his speeches have shown since the beginning of the controversy, is able to look at the matter from the national as well as from the Church point of view,—or, as we should prefer to say, he'realises that the true Church view is the national view, and that the Church of England is at all times and on all subjects bound to consider herself the trustee of the higher religious interests of the nation rather than merely of those who are practising members of the Anglican Communion. As long as she is Established by law—and long may she so continue !— she is the Church of the whole and not of a part, and must think of the spiritual welfare of those who do not conform as well as of those who do conform. We know, of course, that this view will in many cases be rejected by Anglican clerical feeling as well as by Nonconformist clerical feeling, but nevertheless it is the view, even if the unconscious view, of the great mass of the laity, Anglican and Nonconformist, throughout the country. We hold, then, that moderate Nonconformist opinion may perfectly well trust the Archbishop of Canterbury in this matter. He is seeking no sectarian triumph for the Establishment, nor has he the slightest desire to impair the strength and energy of the Nonconformist Churches. He wants, not to get the best of a bargain, but to reach an agreement, and, as he truly said, to prevent the incalculable damage which is being done to the higher interests of the nation by the continuance of the educa- tion controversy.
The Archbishop spoke very guardedly as to the details of the Bishop of St. Asaph's Bill, but for ourselves we cannot help thinking that the more the Bill is considered the more its general framework will commend itself to practical men. At the same time, we fully recognise that the concessions which it demands from the Church are of the most tremendous and far-reaching kind. The Church in the narrower sense is, in fact, asked to sacrifice the whole of her privileged position,--a position, be it remembered, which she has reached in the matter of educa- tion chiefly through the personal energy and pecuniary sacrifices of her members. For ourselves, we think that the sacrifice is worth making in order to secure for all time a sound and firm religious basis for our elementary education. But this does not alter the fact that the immediate and apparant sacrifice is on an enormous scale.
Though the Spectator has always been an advocate of the Referendum, we have hitherto felt no desire to introduce the classical device of ostracism. When, how- ever, one considers the education question, one feels almost tempted to advocate a system of partial and temporary ostracism. Can any one doubt that if at the present moment it were possible to decree that Dr. Clifford and those who support his extreme views on the one side, and Bishop Gore and those who hold with him on the other, could be removed to some pleasant island in the Pacific, and kept there for six months without power to write to the newspapers or to take any share in the controversy, the prospects of an agreement would be immensely increased.? Provided that it had been first ascertained that the climate of the island was salubrious and the accommodation adequate, we should ourselves unhesitatingly vote for a temporary banishment of twenty or thirty of the chief extremists on the Noncon- formist and on the Anglican side. We are sure that the country would gain, and we are by no means sure that the banished men might not also be personally gainers, especi- ally if there were only one place of public worship in the island, and if it were ordained that the services should be held by the different Churches in rotation,—all the banished men being bound to attend every day. They would learn, we venture to think, by such enforced tolera- tion that lesson which was so strikingly learnt, and so honestly and candidly acknowledged, by Lord William Cecil as the result of the Conferences held in the Far East by representatives of all the non-Roman Christian Missions in China. Lord William Cecil discovered experimentally how deep and wide, and of what incomparable value, is the common simple fundamental Christianity shared in by all the sects. If, while the Archbishop of Canterbury and the moderate Nonconformists were coming to an agreement on the education question here, the banished men of our thought could be proving in the Pacific the realities of fundamental Christianity, it is quite con- ceivable that they might return to England to bless instead of to denounce a system of elementary education such as that advocated by the Bishop of St. Asaph.
Previous page
