(4)

Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman declared that Roman Catholics might go further and fare worse. The alternative offered on the Opposition side was State-provided secular teaching, with the right of entry to all denominations. But if it were adopted, what would become of the Catholic atmosphere? Mr. Birrell's Bill was undenominational. The Government meant that the common elements of Christianity, with a flavour of Protestantism, should be taught in schools, and had not imagined that this would be distasteful to Anglicans. The Government intended to adhere to Clause 4, which was meant to conciliate the Roman Catholics.

My impression of what has happened is this:—(1) The obligation to take over a Voluntary School only applies to Roman page 32 Catholic Schools. (2) A, ballot may take place instead of the four-fifths business, (3) If the Local Authority does then graciously grant "extended facilities," it will fine the Church of England School for exercising its religious liberty. (4) The Education Department may, on appeal, free an "extended-facilities Anglican-School" from all popular control whatever; thereby giving, as I understand, true and real religious liberty by making people pay for their religious convictions.

But even then the thing, seems contradictory to "shall" instead of "mav" in Clause 2, and to the erection of a new sort of Star Chamber in Clause 9.

Of the 5000 schools Mr, Mundella alludes to, 3000 are Church of England Schools, Although I cannot make the clause itself very clear, I. think certain things emerge into clearness :—

(1) Local elections in England and Wales will, in the future, be fought on, so-called, "religious" issues. (2) Unlimited scope for sectarian bitterness and strife is generously provided by the Government for the delectation of about four million children attending the Elementary Schools. I think that, when the page 33 Minister for Education introduced his Bill, he said something about it not boing primarily concerned with the improvement of education. That "obiter dictum" is quite true. (3) The Rates will wholly support the Roman Catholic Schools, and, possibly, many Church of England Schools. This is a most interesting situation, and full of quaint developments. Public control does not appear to be very prominent herein. One trusts that the in-exhaustible possibilities of this state of affairs will never blow with "icy blasts of sectarian test," and thus "nip the buds of "piety and reverence," which it is hoped will come to full maturity in this "national shelter!"

Clause 6 is next in importance. As introduced, it proposed to make Religion an "extra" by making school time begin at 9.45 a.m. instead of 9. We know in New Zealand the disastrous effect of that policy. Happily, the Minister, according to the cables, is going to amend this, and continue Religious, Instruction as a normal instead of an abnormal element in the lives of children. The "Auckland Star" (14. v. 06) well said: ". . . . no "intelligent man believes that it is good for the People or the State that children shall be brought up without religious instruction." To make Religion an "extra" must have that effect.

Clause 7 makes certain necessary provision for security of tenure of teachers in a transferred Voluntary School, and buys out at one year's purchase teachers in a Voluntary School which is not transferred. This one year's purchase has to do with the "Teachers' Superannuation Act" of 1898. But the "crux" of the clause is in Section 1. This section forbids a teacher in a transferred Voluntary School, wherein "extended facilities" have been granted, from giving any instruction under those "extended facilities" exrept by permission of the Local Authority. Let me illustrate this from my old Parish School in London:—Supposing that the present managers transfer that school, on condition of "extended facilities," then the Church Teachers on the Staff will not be permitted to go on doing what many of them really entered a Church School in order to do unless the Education Committee of London County Council give leave. It seems to me to be a strange form of Religious Liberty. I remember that one of the great arguments, of devout members of the Liberation Society used to be: the immorality of a Parliament, in which unbelievers might sit, having anything to do with Religion in a State Church. I think myself there is a good deal in the argument. However, here we have applied to Local Authorities and school teachers, and children, in a twentieth century Education Bill, the same principle that used to be consid- page 34 cred both anachronistic and detractive erf Religion. Verily, we are an illogical race! Anyhow, it is quite conceivable that the Local Authority might forbid a teacher from this exercise of his religious liberties.

Clauses 8 and 9 provide for the establishment of what I have ventured to call the new Star Chamber. There are to be three Commissioners appointed for the whole country: they are to be as supreme in law as the House of Lords; no Court shall have power to review or interfere with the decisions of these three Commissioners. It may be quite right; it may be quite wrong.

Clause 10 I have dealt with in connection with Clause 2.

Clause 11 prevents deadlock through dislocation of any sudden character in the educational machine.

Clause 12 provides for a grant of one million pounds to Local Authorities for their increased expenses. Many experts calculate the sum at two and a half millions. One million works out at about £50 per school.

That completes Part I of the Bill. Fart II. has to do with Endowments, and Part III. is called Miscellaneous. Part IV. sets up Home Rule for Wales in matters educational: a sort of National Council for Wales is to be set up, which will, apparently, be quite independent of the Education Department. "Gallant Little Wales" is to be given the opportunity of kicking educational goals "on its own:" no other part of an United Kingdom may even be Referee!

This Bill has done the Church of England real good. You will find that people won't bother their heads very much now about the findings of "the Ritual Commission;" they have a bigger and more important thing to think of now than ritual, excessive or, defective:—Churchmen (and 1 hope Romans and Wealeyans) now have to fight shoulder to shoulder to keep Religion in any of the schools of England. Let me repeat what I said some time ago:—The day the Voluntary Schools go, is the day upon which all Religious Instruction will go; if the Voluntary Schools go the standard goes. Thank God, Churchmen at Home seem now to be united in a real big effort of the utmost importance to the Empire, The Bishop of London tells us that High and Low Churcnmen are at one on this question. The Dean of Canterbury (Dr. Wace) has withdrawn from the Church of England League (Lady Wimborne's organisation) because he feels obliged to join "without reserve" in the opposition to the Bill. The Bishop of Hereford has modified his position. Indeed, so far as one knows, the Dean of Durham (Dr. Kitchin) is the only man of considerable eminence in the Church of England page 35 who appears to favour the Bill These sort of things, anyhow, tend to show that if those who attacked the schools expected the support of men who disliked excessive ritual, their expectation has been disappointed. The Church of England has been enormously helped to do her best work by the present Bill.

I draw to a conclusion. I ask your forbearance for keeping you so long, and your forgiveness for being so dull The subject has been partly to blame; but the Lecturer has been more to blame.

I have tried to make a complicated subject clear, I am well aware that, in some respects, I have miserably failed. I have had to muddle up clauses in the present Bill, and I have been unable to summarize it as I could the 1902 Bill, because the eables tell of changes. I have done my best!

So far as ever I could, I have tried to avoid causing needless pain to any man here or to any man who may read the reports in the papers to-morrow. But I have had to speak as a Churchman who, while conscious of many mistakes and errors of judgment made by his Mother Church, is yet proud, beyond the power of words to express, of her generous self-sacrifice for the education of the poor. My Mother Church taught me the fifth commandment. To the day of my death I shall try to keep it—I do honour my Mother of The Faith.

I do not expect every man here to agree with all that I have said to-night. That would be very dull. I do expect that men will try to think a bit harder upon the subject I have spoken about. There are two sides to it.

I wish our daily papers here would publish in full the present Archbishop of Canterbury's speech on this subject in Convocation: it would be of real value towards both clear thinking and Christian Unity in this country, which is so far removed from the actual seat of conflict.

Leaflets will be distributed as you leave the Hall to-night. They have to do with the Act of 1902. Unexpectedly, I found I had them here, and must have had them for some years. As 1 have already told you, I always disliked the Act of 1902. Therefore, you will not accuse me of partiality in circulating these leaflets of the National Society. They are circulated in order that people may have some sort of authoritative information to carry away with them.

There is a letter in the "Spectator" of April 21st, from the pen of that old Christian gentleman, Rev, Dr. Bigg, formerly President of the Wesleyan Conference. The letter breathes the same sort of spirit that any one who ever met the writer (as was page 36 my privilege occasionally) would expect. I close this Lecture with some of his words:—

"It cannot but be inferred that, in 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 resources of the Churches, Accordingly, when, under the late Government of the country, denominational schools became recipients 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 and 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 . . . I venture to say for myself . . . 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."

If I have succeeded, in ever so slight a degree, in making myself clear to you to-night, I shall have also succeeded .in showing you, by this extract, that between this expression of Dr. Rigg's views and my own, as expressed in the course of this Lecture, there is little difference, in so far as our estimates of the Act of 1902 and the Bill of 1906 are concerned.