THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD'S CIRCULAR.
THE interval between Christmas and Easter has been employed by the London School Board in amending and adopting a circular to teachers upon the nature of -the religious instruction which they are to give to the children. This undertaking was prefaced by a more exact definition of the religion which the Board proposes to teach. It may seem strange that until the present year the Board has never expressly said that it would teach , Christianity. As matters stood down to January 25th last, the letter of the rule would have been complied with if the religion taught had been the Mahommedan or the Mormon religion. It would be a mistake, however—at least, we think so—to suppose that the introduction of the word Christian into the rule involves any change in the religious instruction, either given, or intended to be given, in the Board-schools of London. According to the best evidence, the circular passed last week exactly em- bodies the religious teaching given in 90 per cent. of the schools. The teachers have interpreted the principles of religion to mean in a general way the principles of the Christian religion as understood by the mass of " ortho- 'dox " Christians. It is difficult to give an accurate, and impossible to give a logical, enumeration of the precise doctrines included in this definition ; but if we take them `'to be such doctrines as are held in common by Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and the majority of English Noncon- formists, ekcluding Unitarians, we shall not be far wrong. Nor, as we believe, is this teaching in any way different from what the chief authors of the " Compro- mise "'of 1870 meant to be given. That there were two opinions held at the time as to what this Compromise stood for, we can easily imagine. But that the majority of those who agreed to it thought that it 'left the Incarnation and the Trinity open questions, we do not believe for a moment. The really important parties to the Compromise were the Church of England and the Orthodox Nonconformists, and its object, as we hold, was to secure the teaching in the Board-schools of London of a Christianity which in- cludes those doctrines. If we are right, the denunciations of which the circular has been the object are so much sur- plusage. It introduces no real change into the religious instruction given ; it simply provides an additional security against change, and in this way makes the carrying out of the Compromise more certain and effectual. The contention which has been set up on behalf of the teachers by the minority in the recent debates is the most preposterous conceivable. Who are the persons really interested in the choice of the religion in which a child shall be brought up ? Nature, law, common-sense alike answer, " The parents." The best arrangement in Board- schools would be one by which the children should be grouped, for the purposes of religious instruction, under the several religions to which their parents belong, nor do we believe that if this plan were honestly tried, it would be found to present any insuperable difficulties. Assuming this to be out of the question, the next best arrangement would be one by which the religion taught in each Board- school should be that professed by the majority of the parents of the children attending the school. If this, again, is objected to, there remains a third plan, that the religion taught in all the schools belonging to a particular Board shall be that of the majority of the parents be- longing to the district. In a rough sort of way, this last arrangement is carried out at present. The opinions of the majority of the ratepayers may in the long run be taken to coincide with the opinions of the majority of the parents. Indeed, it is only this coincidence that makes the intervention of the ratepayer justifiable. A School Board may refuse to teach any religion, and leave that part of its duties to the parents, or it may, so far as its ability extends, teach the religion which the parents wish to be taught. But here, morally speaking, its rights end. It has no business to use its accidental opportunities for the purpose of teaching children a religion it happens itself to like, instead of that which the parents like. Still, even the naked claim of the ratepayers to decide the religion taught in Board-schools, without reference to the religion of the parents, is respectable by the side of the claim that the religion taught in Board-schools shall be decided by each individual teacher. The ratepayers do at least defray the cost of the religious instruction given, while all that the teacher does is to take the ratepayers' money for teaching not the religion they would wish taught, but the religion which he likes to teach on the showing of his present advocates. We could understand this claim in the mouth of Cardinal Vaughan or Archbishop Benson. There it would be a pretension to be resisted, but not one to be laughed at. When it is set up on behalf of every one of the thousands of teachers employed in the Board- schools of London, it only excites wonder at the singular lack of humour displayed by their professed friends. Why, a parent might reasonably ask, is the decision what religion my child is to be taught to be taken out of my hands and given—not to a church which claims to have a divine revelation, not to the State, which has succeeded to the rights of pcvrens patria once asserted by the Sovereign, not to the ratepayers, who have at least the right of the purse—but to the estimable Mr. Brown, or the no lees estimable Miss Robinson, in consideration of having been a pupil teacher, and spent two years in a Training College ?
The reason why this is the worst as well as the most absurd solution of the problem is obvious. Minorities in elementary schools enjoy the protection of a conscience- clause. If a parent wishes to withdraw his child from the religious lesson he has an absolute right to do so. But in order to make this right of any value the parent must know what the religious lesson is like. If the nature of the religious instruction which the teachers are to give is defined by the Board, any parent can satisfy himself on the point. In London, for example, he has only to read the circular adopted last week. That will tell him that his child will be taught so much of Christian doctrine as is accepted by Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and " orthodox " Dissenters. If this minimum of doctrine offends him, he has his remedy. But supposing that he had no means of ascertaining what doctrines were taught, he must either avail himself of the conscience-clause when perhaps there is no reason for making use of it, or he must run the risk of having his child taught a religion which he does not himself believe. We do not see why he should be subjected to either of these disadvantages when the School Board is perfectly able to say beforehand that the religious instruction given in its schools shall be of such and such a kind. If indeed the teachers had really used the liberty which their advocates claim for them, and used it in an unpopular direction, it would long a go have been taken away. What would have been the feelings, for example, of the majority of Londoners, if it had been dis- covered that a Roman Catholic teacher had been drawing from the words of Scripture, " Thou art Peter," a demon- stration of the supremacy of the Pope ? Yet, on Mr. Stanley's/showing, he would have a perfect right to do this. Nay more, the teacher's business, as we have been told again and again during the past twelve months, is to teach what he honestly believes to be the true meaning of the words he is explaining. A Roman Catholic honestly believes that the meaning of the text " Thou art Peter," is that the Pope is the supreme ruler of the Church. Consequently a Roman Catholic teacher in a Board-school is bound to give this explanation and no other. He must not, it is true, teach it out of a Roman Catholic formulary, but, according to this view, if he finds it in Scripture, he is not doing his proper business if he does not teach it. Looked at in this way, the action of the majority on the London School Board becomes a matter of plain common- sense. The Board wishes to give religious instruction to all the children in its schools whose parents do not object. Now, religious instruction must be instruction in a religion, and in the opinion of the majority of the Board the aver- age London parent wishes this religion to be the Christian religion. Further, the average London parent understands by the Christian religion that minimum of doctrine which is embodied in the circular adopted at the last meeting of the Board, and it is on this ground that the circular has been drawn up. This being the opinion of the majority on the Board, it is their business to give effect to it. If they are mistaken in their opinion, it is for the ratepayers to prove it to them next November. But we do not think they will.
Previous page
