[TO TIIR EDITOR OF T/IR "SPECTATOR:1
SIR,—After reading your article in last week's issue on the subject of our present educational problem, I am impelled to write to you on the subject. In bygone years the Spectator several times gave the hospitality of its columns to letters of mine on the subject of national education, both at home and abroad, and in particular in America. As Principal of a large Training College, and author of a volume on the subject of national education in the principal countries of the world, I had occasion for more than thirty years to make a close study of the subject in its various aspects. .
In 1870 it was my official duty to explain to Mr. Gladstone on behalf of the General Education Committee of the Wesleyan Methodist Church the principles formally agreed upon in our Methodist Church as to the scope of ecclesiastical duty and the ground of denominational claims on this subject. I have lately read over the published record, now lying before me, of the inter- view with Mr. Gladstone on the occasion to which I have referred, and on which I acted as principal spokesman for our Church. I may, I hope, be pardoned if I sum up as briefly as may be the position at that time maintained by the old Methodist Church on this question, now more "burning," perhaps, than ever before.
The Wesleyan Methodists at this official interview in 1870 authorised me to define on their behalf certain principles and to make certain demands. They demanded, to begin with, and they were the first body distinctly to formulate the demand, that " building grants to denominational day-schools should im- mediately come to an end," and "the function of government" in the oversight and government of the schools "should be reduced and limited to that of testing and rewarding the purely secular results" of the education given. The Wesleyan Com- mittee further expressed their judgment, at that time a somewhat bold position to take up, that "no school which did not to the fullest extent accept a satisfactory Conscience Clause should have any standing at all as a public elementary school," and that "school inspectors should have no faculty what- soever as to religion or religious knowledge" in their work as inspectors. I had further to explain—and here an important point of definition comes in—that " as respected rate-aided quasi-denominational schools, as distinguished from schools created by School Boards," "as these occupied an inter- mediate position they should lie under intermediate conditions,"
and that "no such rate-aided schools should have used in them any Catechism or denominational formulary whatever " ; to which critical suggestion Mr. Gladstone asked in reply : " You forbid the Catechism in such schools, but you do not ask for further legisla- tion respecting the use of the Scriptures ?" to which the answer given was : "We are content to leave that in the hands of the Board and the teacher, and if the teacher taught denomina- tionally he must be disposed of." To this Mr. Gladstone rejoined by a question which, when thought over, will be found to have special significance as a Churchman's question. " Does it not occur to you that ratepayers may find it very greatly for their own convenience to adopt a rather wide distinction between rate- aided schools and rate-founded schools, for the sake of avoiding all labour and responsibility of management where they are satisfied with the schools which exist?" My reply was that "a very wide margin was already left. The rate-aided school would be denominational in committee and government, in respect of the teacher and the minister, and the connection of the day-school with the Sunday-school. The sacrifice of the Catechism seemed to be the smallest concession which the denomination could make." The Rev. John Bedford—ex-President of the Wesleyan Confer- ence—expressed his hope that "many ministers and members of the Church of England would not object to the proposal. But the general good of the nation had to be considered."
I venture to think that what I have now transcribed from one of our Church Reports will at the present time be regarded by many readers of the Spectator as not only of interest, but of some historical importance. One point, at any rate, stands out which has a direct bearing upon the present controversy. It cannot but be inferred that, in the view of the Methodists at the settlement of 1870, the special denominational rights agreed upon as between Mr. Gladstone's Administration and the Churches were distinctly and directly dependent on the absence of rate-aid from the re- sources of the Churches. Accordingly, when, under the late Government of the country, denominational schools became re- cipients of rate-aid, the concordat, so to speak, of 1870 between the national Government and the denominations in regard to the Church day-schools of the various denominations was to a certain extent contravened. Direct dependence to some extent on the parochial rates riveted upon the Church schools the character of undenominational properties. Hence they are so painfully at the mercy of Parliament to-day. It is a woeful calamity, the meaning of which no one is likely to feel more painfully than one who for five-and-thirty years was Principal of one of the largest English Training Colleges. Moreover, while the pecuniary aid from the rates has been, in comparison, a trifling contribution to the schools, the penalty now imposed is ruinous. The disability imposed is crippling, and touches the vital force of the school.
No fair-minded Christian educationist can but feel the weight of the considerations which have been so impressively set forth in the wise manifesto of the excellent Primate on this painful subject, and the strength and reasonableness of your own view as to the harsh and inequitable character of the Government measure as now before Parliament. I venture to say for myself—I have no right to speak officially on behalf of my Church, being now miles emeritus and without special responsibility as to our Church system of national education—that I earnestly hope that, without demanding what can no longer be claimed with legislative sanction, the friends of Christian education in our public schools will by earnest and united moral and political influence be able to secure such amendments in the Government measure as those important ones which you suggest and advocate.
79 Brixton Hill, S.W.
Previous page
