66 



The Review of Reviews. 



July I, 1996 



ON THE EDUCATION BILL. 



The Archbishop of Westmentster. 

 The Xiiieteeiith Century opens with a symposium 

 for and against the Education Bill. The Archbishop 

 of Westminster pronounces the Bill to be no solu- 

 tion of the educational difficulty. Even if passed, it 

 will give rise to fierce local contests all over the 

 country, leading eventually to a fresh appeal to Par- 

 liament. He says that Mr. Birrell is evidently most 

 anxious to maintain religious influence in public ele- 

 mentary schools. He has, ho\vever, made the teach- 

 ing of fundamental Protestantism a permanent pub- 

 lic charge. But to this many object, because — 



in their eyes this " simple Bible teaching " of the kind pro- 

 posed errs, not merel.v by defect, but because it is in direct 

 opposition to wliat they regard as the fundamental prin- 

 ciple of Christianity— namely, the existence in the world of 

 an authority appointed by Christ Himself to each in His 

 name. While the Protestant conscience is to be satisfied at 

 the public expense, the non-Protestant conscience is to re- 

 ceive no such satisfaction unless its possessors are willing 

 to pay for it. This is Uie essential injustice of the Bill, in 

 that it seta up two standards of appreciation, and makee 

 men suffer, in their purse at lea^t, for their conscientious 

 religious convictions. 



Dr. Bourne next asks how far the Bill will meet 

 the needs of the Established Church. He says it is 

 very difficult for an outsider, in the presence of oppo- 

 site opinions expressed by English Churchmen, to 

 judge the real position. The position of the Cath3lic 

 Church, he says, is clear, whether Catholics be Tory 

 or Liberal, Nationalist or non-political. He says: — 



.\lthough ne desire no quarrel with anyone, we are pre- 

 pared to resist in every legitimate way all attempts to 

 deprive us of the right of our Catholic parents to have 

 their children educated in the elementary schools of the 

 country in o'^cordance with their conscientious religious 

 ^^onWctions. We give Mr.' Birrell credit for the best pos- 

 sible intentions, and we readily believe that he has en- 

 deavoured to give consideration to our claims, but he would 

 surely admit that the facilitie.s which he proposes are hone- 

 lessly inadequate, and that, if he can find justification for 

 t'em. it is on grounds, not of justice, but solely of political 

 expediency. 



His Grace then asks: (i) Why Catholic children 

 in districts of less than five thousand inhabitants 

 should be deprived of a distinctively Catholic school, 

 while Protestant teaching mav be provided in all 

 districts without exception. (2) How can a non- 

 Catholic local authority judge of the fitness of a 

 teacher to teach Catholic children? (.^) Why is no 

 legal protection given against the possible bigotry of 

 a local authority which mav refuse the wishes of the 

 Catholic parents? (4) Why is no safeguard inserted 

 to prevent local authorities forcing non-Catholic 

 children into a school provided for, and chiefly used 

 by, Catholic children ? Mr. Birrell's only answer is 

 ■" the too patent fact that after all we are only a 

 minority." His Grace adds, somewhat truculently, 

 ■ We may prove a more inconvenient minority than 

 the Government has yet realised, if they force upon 

 I's a righteous conflict for conscience" sake," 



LORD HALIF.^X, 



In marked contrast to the suave and dignified 

 style of the Archbishop is the almost fierce and 

 fevered tone of Lord Halifax. He declares: — 



The Bill is in fact a measure for the establishment, on 

 the ruins of all the schools belonging to the Church of 

 England and to the Roman Catholic body, and on those of 

 maai.v of the schools built by the Wesleyans, of undenomina- 

 tional religion to the exclusion of any other. In other 

 words it is a Bill for the establishment and endowment of 

 Bissent. 



Here is a characteristic passage : — 



To insist on undenominational Christianity, or funda- 

 mental Christianity, which is another name for the same 

 thing, as a substitute for the Christianity of the creeds, is 

 all the same as if a man were trying to establish a zoo- 

 logical garden, and at the same time to lay down the 

 principle that no particular animal, such as a tiger or an 

 elephant, was to be accepted, but only a fundamental mam- 

 mal. Fundamental Christianity has as little existence as a 

 lundamental mammal, and we refuse to be deceived by it. 

 We are not prepared to see the definite Christianity of the 

 creeds banished from the land. We are not prepared to see 

 our trust deeds torn up, the property we have devoted to 

 the spread of Chinst"s religion confiscated. We do not in- 

 tend to allow the decisions of the Law Courts to be over- 

 ridden by the commission to be appointed under the Bill, to 

 investigate into and to override the trusts upon which our 

 schools are held. We shall not surrender our schools, nor 

 shall we be deterred from resisting the Board of Education, 

 armed though it be under the Bill with the power of pro- 

 curing the imprisonment of those who disregard its orders. 



Happily he does not end without ofTering a con- 

 structive alternative. The case, he thinks, will be 

 met: — 



Xot, I submit, by excluding all religious teaching from 

 the national system of education, not by the State invent- 

 ing a religiou of its own and compelling all to pay for it, 

 but b.v the frank recognition on tJie part of the State, as in 

 Germany, of the religious teaching of all denominations 

 alike, by a friendl.v neutrality on the part of the State to 

 all religions, and by the maintenance by the State of all 

 schools, whether denominational or not, which comply with 

 the Stite requirements as to educational efficiency. There 

 is no other satisfactory solution of the educational ques- 

 tion. 



MR. HERBERT P.iUL. 



In a racily written but earnestly conceived paper 

 Mr. Herbert Paul declares that there are now only 

 two alternatives — the Bill, or Secularism pure and 

 simple. He says : — 



The old denominational system is dead and buried. It 

 comm'tted suicide when it laid hands on the rates in 19c2. 

 For the sake of ,a little money the Bishops, who are now 

 erumblins". sold the pass, and let the enemy in. It is too 

 late for them to complain now. 



He affirms his strong belief that there is no danger 

 from purely secular teaching in English schools: — 



Some High Churchmen would prefer it to what they sneer- 

 ingly call " uudenominationalism." But the good sense of 

 the English people will not have it. Churchmen and Non- 

 conformists would unite to turn ont any Government that 

 proposed the exclusion of the Bible from the schools. Mr. 

 Forster felt that in 1870. and Mr. Birrell. I doubt not. feels 

 it now. Angry disputants on both sides prophesy that if the 

 opposite policy to their own be adopted. Secularism must 

 ensue. I do not believe them, 'rjie obstacle to Secularism 

 is the impregnable obstacle of the English people. 



He adds : — 



Take away the Romanising party in the Church of Eng- 

 land, which centres in the English Church Union, and the 

 opposition to this Bill would be insignificant. 



AX ANGLICAN CONVERT TO SECULARISM. 



Mr. D. C. Lathbury- frankly admits that the dual 

 system cannot last. It is costly, it is cumbersome. 

 He urges Churchmen to concentrate their hostility 

 on the points which are really vital — namely, the ex- 

 tension of local option to the religious d4ficulty, and 

 the exclusive endowment of '.'ndenorr.'n?tion5lisTi. 



