TOPICS OF THE DAY.
' THE LOSS OF THE EDUCATION BILL.
THE attempt to reach a compromise in regard to the Education Bill has failed,—the Bill being lost owing to the unwillingness of the Unionist leaders to assent to the provision forbidding the teacher in single- school rural areas to give the denominational lesson. No doubt there were other points of disagreement, but it seems to be admitted that if concession had been made on this point by the Unionist leaders and the repre- sentatives of the Church, a general agreement could have been reached without difficulty. In our opinion, it is little short of a national disaster that the opposition to the Bill was maintained on this narrow issue. Consider for a moment what it means. In the great majority of transferred schools throughout the land one of the regular teachers, as now, would have given the denomi- national lesson. In the small rural parishes, however, where there was only one school and no possibility of access to any other school, the religious lesson would have been given by some one outside the school staff. Can this be considered a ground for wrecking the Bill and giving up the series of compromises that had been arranged upon other matters ? Remember that it does not in the least mean that either denominational religion or the clergyman would have been excluded from the school. On the contrary, it would actually have let the clergyman into the rural school, for he or his curate would have been the person detailed to give the religious lesson. Though we are not among those who think that the clergy are by nature unfitted to teach little children, we are willing to admit that in large schools with large classes the work of teaching has become so much a matter for experts that the clergy might find difficulty in doing the work of teaching efficiently. In small rural schools, however, it appears to us perfectly appropriate that the clergyman should in ordinary cases give the denominational lesson. It would be by no means too heavy a tax upon his time, for, by the nature of the case, the duty of teaching would only fall on the parson in those places where he is notoriously not overworked. To attempt, then, to represent the proposal as one which the Church must fight to the uttermost seems to us indefensible, and we believe will seem so 'to most men of moderate opinions. What makes the refusal to yield here the more unfortunate is the fact that if in practice the arrangement could have been shown to work badly, it can hardly be doubted that in the next. Parliament it would have proved possible to do away with the exceptional disqualification of the teacher in the small rural schools.
The Duke of Devonshire in his moderate and states- manlike speech protesting against the rupture of the negotiations declared that he had received a vast number of letters and memorials and representations, of which not more than one per cent. were in the direction of conciliation. Nevertheless, he believed that " after a very short time had elapsed, and when these more or less irresponsible advisers had had greater experience of the results which will follow the loss of the Bill, they would regret that they had not allowed their representatives in the House of Lords a freer hand and a larger disCretion." These words, we believe, represent the true facts of the case. As the Duke of Devonshire also pointed out, the objectionable things in the Bill were in almost all cases remediable by future legislation, while the Bill and the amendments declared acceptable by the Government were only irremediable in points where it was generally agreed that substantial justice was done.
When those who have refused to accept the Govern- ment concessions begin to take stock of the situation, we cannot believe that they will long continue satisfied with their action. In the first place, they can scarcely fail to note the obviously genuine delight expressed by the extremists on the other side. It is not for nothing that Dr. Clifford and Mr: Perks show their pleasure at the loss of the Bill. It means that they and those whom they represent not only consider that too much was given to the Church in the amended Bill, but also that they feel confident that the ultimate result will be a settlement which will be more, not less, favourable to their own special - - - interests. It is difficult to find solid grounds for con- tradicting this view. No one can suppose that the education controversy will now die away, or that things can be left as they are. It will continue for the next few years with increasing bitterness and increasing injury, not ,merely to education, but to the position of the Established Church. Not only will the weight of the administrative machine be thrown against the Voluntary schools at headquarters, but in a very great number of cases the local authorities will be spurred on by the militant Nonconformists to demand their pound of flesh from those schools. If these tendencies are supplemented, as we should not be at all surprised to find them supplemented, by large Parliamentary grants for the building of new Provided schools to take the place of Voluntary schools condemned as inefficient, and if by this means the number of Voluntary schools throughout the country is largely reduced, how will it be possible to say that the Church has been benefited by the defeat of Mr. Birrell's Bill? Even if the rejection of the .Bill, with the consequent embarrassment to the Government, turns out, as it very possibly may, to be to the immeliate and temporary benefit of the Unionist Party, what guarantee has the Church that she will not be thrown over in the end by the Unionist leaders ? The Unionist politicians, after three or four more years of the education controversy, even supposing that they are returned to power with a small majority, might quite conceivably think it good party tactics to end the controversy by introducing a Bill which, though nominally framed in the interests of the Church, might in reality be by no means so favourable as the present Bill. Remember that in such a case the Church would be powerless. She could not threaten to join the other party in the State, for in the case we suppose an understanding would have been come to between the Unionists and that party. Again, the party managers know quite well, and rely upon their knowledge, that the clergy cannot leave the Unionist Party, and that any threats which they may indulge in of doing so are only sham thunder.
Reviewing all the circumstances, we may feel sure that though a better Bill from the point of view of the general educational needs of the country, and from the point of view of public administration and public finance, may be introduced, it is practically impossible that one more favourable to the Church of England will ever be pre- sented to Parliament. At the same time, it is idle for the clergy to imagine that the status quo of the Act of 1902 will be permanently maintained. The bitterness of the agitation, it is certain, will continue, and in the end the indifferent part of the nation, sickened by years of controversy, will insist that alterations must be made in the Act of 1902 which will satisfy the Nonconformists.
It is necessary before we leave the subject of the destruction of the Bill to say something as to those on whom the responsibility for the failure falls. In the first place, we believe it falls upon Mr. Balfour. Partly owing to his unwillingness to recognise any faults in the measure of 1902, but still more, we fear, owing to his desire to snatch a, party advantage, Mr. Balfour has throughout been opposed to' a compromise. He has desired that the Bill should not be amended, but rejected; and he is doubtless prepared to declare that by securing its rejection he has dealt a powerful blow for his party. We shall not attempt to reargue this point, but will merely state once more our belief that, even 'if the Unionist Party' gains temporarily through the em- barrassment of its opponents, it will in reality lose infinitely more owing to the injury • done to the causes which it is the business of that party to champion and protect. We wish that we could find it possible to assert that the Archbishop of Canterbury does not to a great extent share the responsibility for wrecking the Bill which falls on Mr. Balfour. We believe that at heart the Archbishop has 'always been for • compromise, and we feel sure that if he had been given a free hand and had felt himself free to consult his own views and wishes rather than those of his followers, he would have come to an understanding on the Bill: Unfortunately, however, he has not shown the strength of purpose required, and instead of leading has allowed himself to be driven. Instead of reminding his followers sternly that it was their duty to follow him, he • has reluctantly acquiesced in their shrill commands that he should move in a particular direction. That this • acquiescence was most unwilling cannot, we fear, serve to acquit him at the bar of public opinion.
The only man who, in our opinion, has come out of the controversy, either on the Unionist or on the Government side, with a perfectly untarnished record is the Duke of Devonshire. He has maintained a wise and statesmanlike attitude throughout. Had the Peers been willing to trust him instead of Lord. Lansdowne or the Archbishop of Canterbury, they would,not only have done the best for the interests of education and for the Church, but they would, we believe, have immensely strengthened. their position with the country. We have no hesitation in saying that the Duke of Devonshire's attitude towards the Bill represents the attitude of the vast majority of the best English- men. For one reason and another, they do not think the Bill by any means a perfect Bill, nor are they enamoured of all the attempts to improve it by various amendments. At the same time, they regard its loss with annoyance and disgust, and look, as he does, with the utmost dissatisfac- tion on the prospect of a further continuance of the educa- tion controversy. The fact that the Duke of Devonshire not only spoke for, but actually voted with, the Govern- ment on Wednesday night is a proof of how deeply he feels upon the matter. Had he been asked to take part in the final Conferences which decided the fate of the Bill, we can hardly doubt that the decision would have been a different one. The fact that he does not appear to have been asked by the Unionist leaders to be present at those Conferences would seem to indicate that the spirit in which they entered upon the work was not one of conciliation in the true sense.
Previous page
