WHAT SHOULD BE THE GOVERNMENT AMEND- MENTS TO THE EDUCATION
BILL
THE time is close at hand when we shall know the limits of Government concession on the Education Bill. As this is really the question on which, more than on any other, the cohesion of the Liberal party in the House of Commons depends, and as we deem even that cohesion,—important as it is,—a matter of indefinitely less importance than the prosecu- tion of the work of education in the country without further delay, it may be well to discuss calmly how far in our opinion the Government ought to go in the direction of concession, and to point out why it would be impossible to go so far as Mr. Winterbotham,—who is the representative of the extreme Dissenters in this matter,—demands, without giving up all hope of passing the Bill.
What Mr. Winterbotham demands beyond what the Govern- ment has yet conceded, is (1), the time-table Conscience Clause for every public elementary school, whether founded by the rates or only aided out of the rates,—i.e., the public specification of hours either before or after the secular teach- ing at which religious teaching will be given, with perfect liberty to all scholars not to attend such teaching ; and (2), the prohibition, in any school supported even partially out of the rates, of all religious teaching and of all religious observ- ances, even at such specified times, except the reading of the Scriptures. Now, of come, what these amendments mean is the complete secularization of all schools that receive a single penny from the rates, except in so far as the reading of the Bible at specified hours,—when the children may attend or not as their parents please, without anything being said on the subject,—may be called religious teaching. As far as the words of Mr. Winterbotham's amendment go, there is no qualification whatever of this stringent rule, even for schools now called denominational, if they should consent to be aided by any sum, however small, out of the rates, nor, of course, a , fortiori, for schools established by the rates. No prayer, not even the Lord's Prayer, could be used ; no explanation of the Bible,—at all events, on any theological point, hardly, in appearance at least, on any moral point which might have theological bearings,—could be given. Now, we do not hesitate to say that terms like these will be rejected, and rightly rejected, by all who have interested themselves hitherto in religious education. What these terms mean is that the managers of every such school must make their option between retaining its ancient character and receiving any sort of aid from the rates. Either it must remain a religious school, and raise by subscription all that the other schools raise by rates, and that, though of course its subscribers would be simultaneously paying rates for schools established, if not on purpose to compete with, still with the effect of competing with and tending to under- mine, their own school,—or it must give up its distinctive character entirely. Non is it possible for either the clergy of England, who unquestionably have done far more for the cause of education than any other set of men, or any other persons moved by profound attachment to the highest of all interests, to assent to such terms? We do not for a moment believe that it is,—nor do we believe that any Bill which should impose such terms on them would have the remotest chance of passing the present Parliament. A very able address delivered at Sion College, and republished in the
new number of the Contemporary Review, by the Rev. John Oakley, —a clergyman whose hearty liberalism of feeling and
earnest devotion to the cause of education are everywhere well known in London, even if they were not sufficiently proved by what he now writes,—puts this point very strongly and, as it seems to us, unanswerably. With regard to the existing schools now called denominational, and established by voluntary efforts though not without assistance from the Privy Council, it is utterly and flagrantly unreasonable to ask that, after giving the strongest conceivable guarantees that no child shall be forced into accepting their special religious teaching, such religious teaching shall be virtually withdrawn even for those whose parents desire it for them, and who at present eagerly avail themselves of it. It is all very well to say that the school managers need not accept aid from the rates. But what is the moral distinction between aid from the rates and aid from the central Government ? Such schools have all this time been aided by the Privy Council's grants, on condition of satisfying its inspectors. Are these grants also to be withdrawn for the future, unless these schools abandon their religious teach- ing? If so, we are to inaugurate the system of putting an immense premium on secular schools which must destroy the religious schools. If not, on what conceivable ground can contributions out of the general taxpayer's pocket be justified, and contributions out of the local taxpayer's pocket be condemned? If the existing denominational schools are to be absolutely refused all aid from the rates, they must logically sooner or later be refused all aid from the Privy Council too. And if they are to be refused aid from Government altogether, while secular schools are to be doubly aided, they must, of course, be extinguished in the unequal competition. It is quite clear that Parliament mast now make up its mind on this great question,—Is reli- gious education to be actively discouraged, or is it only religious propagandism and religions inequality that is to be actively discouraged ? Mr. Winterbotham's amendments practically propose the former, while the Government, and we believe the country, only mean the latter. But if the latter be all that we are to avoid, it is quite certain that. Mr. Winterbotham's amendments cannot be accepted.
What, then; ought we to concede ? We think Mr. Oakley, in the article of the Contemporary Review to which we have referred, points out very clearly what may be, and as, we think, ought to be conceded, though we must add something to his list of concessions. We should see no reason why the public specification of the times of formal religious teaching and the clear separation of those times from the ordinary teaching, might not be conceded in both the new rate-founded, and the old rate-aided, schools alike, but that this will press very hardly on the Catholics, who profess to mingle religious worship most intimately with the ordinary teaching, and who would, therefore, be needlessly cut off from all aid from the rates,—and, logically, before long also from the Privy Council,—we say needlessly, because we believe that in practice Roman Catholic schools will hardly ever have a Protestant scholar in them to be protected, so that this provision will, in fact, simply operate to cut them off from help in prosecuting a most praiseworthy public object,—the education of the poor Roman Catholic children, —without protecting any Protestant child's interests. Surely if Roman Catholic schools in the Roman Catholic quarters of our great towns are well and ably taught to the satisfaction of the inspectors, and other Protestant schools are within reach for Protestant children, the former would deserve as much aid from the rates as the latter, in spite of their not separating the religious teaching so completely ? However, it is quite clear that the time-table Conscience Clause must be adopted for all schools managed by the local Boards of Education, and we do not see why the denominational schools should not, in
general at least, frankly accept it. •
But then we maintain that in all schools in which the voluntary managers still continue to supply a considerable pro- portion of the funds,—say at least half of all the funds, ex- clusive of the school pence and the central grant,—the reli- gious teaching at the hours publicly assigned should be entirely directed by the managers. This is the point on which we think that Mr. Oakley's views need qualification. Clearly it -will never do to let private managers accept from the rates all the help which hitherto they have provided out of voluntary subscriptions, and yet continue to control the religious teach- ing as much as they ever did before, when they were in fact making great sacrifices for the school. We assert the rights of the denominational managers to control the religious teach-
ing absolutely, at the separate and publicly assigned times, so long as they derive a substantial part of the school funds from the old denominational sources, and no longer. The Govern- ment must propose some limit on the right of the old managers to control the character of a school for which therm longer make the old sacrifices. We should say that so long as volute- tary contributions find not less than one-half of all the funds
locally supplied (except the school pence) the old managers should be allowed to manage still in relation to the religious-. character of the school, on condition that the hours of religious. teaching are publicly made known, and no child is liable to- censure except by its parents for non-attendance. But it lir- clear that at least some considerable and permanent pecuniary sacrifice must be made in order to earn the privilege of keep- ing the direction of the school (especially as to religious teaching) in private hands. It would never do to let the denominational board absorb the whole power, and the rate- payers supply the whole means exclusive of that supplied by the parents and the Privy Council. It is the sacrifice made in the cause of education by the clergy and the denomina- tional managers, and that alone, which entitles them to retain the management in their hands so long as they manage efficiently.
Lastly, as to the new schools to be founded by the School Board, we hold that something further than the mere pular announcement of the hours of religious teaching and their- easy separability from the secular teaching would be desirable. It is to be hoped that in these schools the religions class would be attended by the great majority of the children, and there- fore by children of many sects. If any system is adopted likely- to alienate many of the sects, the greatest advantage of thea religious class will be gone. But to limit this teaching, as Mr. Winterbotham proposes, to mere reading of the Bible,—" with- out note or comment," as the rule of the British Schools pro- vides,—would be far worse in our minds than prohibiting- direct religious teaching altogether, for a sham is always. worse than a mistake. The only feasible concession therefore. is, in those schools established by the Local Boards, to prohibit. the teaching of catechisms and formularies, but leave the- schoolmaster chosen entirely free to explain the Bible, and tot. teach the spiritual and moral substance of his own creed, to'- the best of his own judgment and ability. In other words,_ give him clearly to understand that the object is to be as com- prehensive as it is possible for him to be, without tying.his. tongue on the highest of all themes. To these concessions we, would add, with Mr. Acland, the right of any aggrieved sect- to appeal to the Education Board, in case they thought the- managers of any school were not administering it in the spirit. of the law.
With these concessions we believe that the Dissenters wouldi be in general heartily content. We are sure that the great majority of the clergy and of the laymen of the Church would. support the Bill as heartily after these concessions had been. granted as before. But if any demand be pressed, and pressed successfully, beyond this, it would probably cause, and de- serve to cause, the failure of the Bill. To pretend to aid_ denominational schools on condition they forfeited every claim.. to the special sympathy of the denominations which hads created and were still heartily supporting them, would be at. once absurd and unjust. To have the Bible ceremoniously read aloud in the new schools as a sort of magical incantation, would make religion a laughing-stock to the sceptical, andl
what is worse,—for we have so much of it already in Great. Britain,—a form, an etiquette, a dead outward custom to. successive generations of-English children.
Previous page
