^V ; ^^ ^ ^ ^ '^^ '#. Sx**-'^>^ ^'^^ "v?" r>s^^ r*^^.Vv^--:W .■•~.\ / rJ^ f »» ^ -^/'■'..%' ■ v^:^&& y^ A T • ;A Jr^ ^ M r ■// >r"---s.> ' ^'. f^^..>^.- . • -c THE CONSCIENCE CLAUSE, CAN IT BE JUSTIFIED? A LETTER TO THE REV. JOHN OAKLEY, M.A, IN EEPLT TO HIS PAMPHLET " THE CONSCIENCE CLAUSE," &c. &c. &c. BY THE KEY. T. GREGORY SMITH, M.A. RECTOR OP TEDSTONE DELAMERE, AND LATE FELLOW OF BRASENOSE COLLEGE, OXFORD. RIVINGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE ; TKINITY STItKRT, Cambriliof. 1800. nrOII STREET, Price Sixpence. r LONDON : OILBEBT AND UIVINGTON, PRINTERS, ST. John's square. A LETTER, 8fc. Rev. and Dear Sir, Your recent pamphlet on the ^* Conscience Clause " has extorted praise even from some who dissent from its conclusions. It claims therefore a reply from those who, hke myself, are still uncon- vinced, notwithstanding the ability with which you defend what seems to us an indefensible position. I will only add, before taking leave of all that is personal in our discussion, that I have given long and earnest consideration to the subject, and have been brought into contact with it as Diocesan Inspector and in other ways. In what I am going to say I feel with you that, as ** sincere friends of education, we do not desire to snatch a logical victory, but to conduce to the sound and practical settlement of a grave political question." For this reason, and because most of our readers, A 2 4 THE CONSCIENCE CLAUSE, if not all, are weary of the controversy, I will come at once to the real point at issue between us ; and I will treat it as briefly as I can consistently with its importance. As usual, the question itself lies in a nutshell : we must get rid of its outer integuments to arrive at the kernel. I will pass by your vindi- cation of the Committee of the Privy Council ; only regretting that, if animated with the very friendly intentions towards the Church for which you give it credit, it should have roused so much of irritation and suspicion among Church-people. Nor, on the other hand, need I attempt to rescue Ai'chdeacon Denison from your onslaught. The gallant Arch- deacon is well able to defend himself; and, though admiring his zeal and perseverance, I am not pre- pared to endorse all his arguments. Let me say, however, by the way, that if you will not allow the Archdeacon to quote **Feed My lambs" for his view of Church and State, your own quotation, *' Forbid them not to come unto Me " is not at all more relevant as a weapon for the ^' Conscience Clause." I will pass over, also, your '* history" of the Clause; for I do not claim '* finality" for previous legislation on the subject. If our previous policy can be proved wrong, the sooner we change it the better. If the present policy of the Privy Council be unsound, it cannot be justified by your having discovered the *'germ" of it in a Minute (**not," you say, **much used") of 1839. I might refer you to Canon Trevor for a ** history" of the Clause UIUC CAN IT BE JUSTIFIED ? 5 from an opposite point of view ; and in particular to the words which he quotes from the very Hps of the Secretary of the Committee \ It is the old story. The stream is muddied ; but the wolf and the lamb are not agreed as to the person in fault. All this let us waive, to come to the point sooner. The meaning of the *^ Conscience Clause," we hear it said, is not clear. No one can accuse your pages of ambiguity. There, at all events, the true purport of it is not disguised. A great principle, I agree with you, is at stake, wliich, as you truly say, ap- plies as much or as httle to '* managing" as to <* building;" to grants for the support of a school as to those for its first foundation ; and it is this. The ** Conscience Clause," whether in its old or ** revised" form, enacts that the manners of a church- school must exempt the children of Dis- senters, if the parents desire it, from instruction in the doctrine or formularies of the Church. We need not ask Mr. Lingen, nor any one else, to explain the meaning of the Clause, Clearly, if one child may claim to be exempted from the doctrine and the formularies of the Church, so may all. Clearly, if parent A may take exception to other parts of the Catecliism, so may parent B to the Apostles' Creed, * " When asked point blank, * How long has the practice existed of refusing a building grant unless a Conscience Clause was inserted?' Mr. Lingen replies, 'Within the last four or five years, I think.' "— Sel. Com. Ev., Q. 451, quoted by Canon Trevor in " The Church and the World." Longmans, 1866. € THE CONSCIENCE CLAUSE, the Lord's Prayer, or the Ten Commandments ^ To enforce against the will of the parents even the mere reading of the Bible, is inconsistent with the principle of the Clause ; and the mere reading with- out comment is nugatory. It matters not for the principle which is at stake, whether by ''the doc- trine and formularies " of the Church you understand only those doctrines which are commonly considered to be peculiar to it or not. For a parent may fairly urge that even the most commonly-received doctrines of the Church are peculiar and distinctive fi*om his point of view, or, in other words, that he objects to them. Nor would it be practicable for a teacher to adapt a *' sliding scale " of doctrine to these various objections. Clearly, a *' conscience clause " — I do not say this Conscience Clause, but any enactment embodying its principle — means that any parent may at his own pleasure exempt his child from any or all religious teaching, or it means nothing. Again, the principle is not really affected by num- bers. In those places which have such a population as entitles them to a grant for more than one sort of school, there, of course, no ''conscience-clause" is needed, even in your view. In those places which are too small to have a grant for more than one school, there the public money must in all fairness be granted to the school of the majority, whether ' The distinction sometimes drawn between *' doctrine " and " practice " is nominal rather than real, especially in teaching. CAN IT BE JUSTIFIED ? 7 Church or sect, if only to one. Take the *' typical" case, as you say, of Llanelly. A Church school there, in addition to the existing schools of another kind, either was wanted for **the surrounding popu- lation " or was not. If wanted, then the grant was due, unclogged by any restrictions. If not, the request for a grant was simply inadmissible ; and, as such, the Committee of Privy Council, as guardians of the pubHc purse, ought to have met it with a flat refusal. I do not presume to draw the line as to population. That must be done by those who con- trol the public expenditure. * Unless where the minority is infinitesimally small (*'De minimis non curat lex"), it would be the truest economy in the end, I think, for the State to aid more than one school in proportion to its capacities. * But these are details which we may leave alone at present. The principle of the ^'Conscience Clause" is what we are concerned with. That principle I beg to repeat, and you will not, I think, contradict me, secures to parents the *' liberty" of withdrawing a child from any religious teaching wliich they may happen to object to. The question, then, is simply this. Are we pre- pared, as a nation, to adopt this principle in our national education ? It is not a question, as you seem to say, between the National Society and the Privy Council, for they are merely organs of public opinion. Still less is it a question, as you say (p. 25), between clergy and laity, for they are not in 8 THE CONSCIENCE CLAUSE, antagonism. It is not a question between managers of Church schools and the pubHc, nor between Church and Dissent, nor even between Church and State ; for if the teaching of a Church school may be interfered with, so may that of any other. It is a question between definite religious teaching on the one hand, and, on the other — you will say, a ** com- prehensive" system of religious teaching — I say, that purely secular system which, as I will try to show pre- sently, is the only possible alternative in this country and at this time. You seem to me to misrepresent the question, unintentionally, I doubt not, when you say (p. 36) that **the Church claims to do as she pleases with the money given by Parhament." We only claim for her the right of using freely as others that portion of the public money which comes bach to her as a *' grant" proportioned to her share in the population and taxes of our common country. You say (p. 37) that the money is given **for the benefit of all, religious differences notwithstanding." True, but the Church has a right to use its own share of the general grant in its own way. You misrepresent the question again, when you make your opponents say (p. 47) **that the Church is bound to teach all Christian children doctrines which some Christian parents do not wish them to learn :" because, to say nothing at present of excep- tional cases, you omit to add, " provided that the parents send the children to a Church school to be taught." It is a misrepresentation, again, of the CAN IT BE JUSTIFIED? '9 question, though not one for which I think you are primarily responsible, to say (p. 26) that the ** entirety" of the Church's teaching remains, though any number of the children in her schools may be wdthdrawn from any part or all of it. But it is, pardon me, a still graver misrepresentation when you accuse us (pp. 55, 62) of aiming at ** Ecclesi- astical supremacy" (!) because we demand equality. To declaim about ** toleration" now-a-days is as glaring an anachronism as it would be to petition against the Laudian censorship of the press. The intolerance, if anywhere, is in those who would debar any ** denomination " — ^you must not except the Church — from inculcating what it believes to be the truth on those who choose to come to it. The Church only asks for this ; and this is stigmatized (p. 69) as an *' injustice to Dissenters ! " Let us dismiss all such irrelevancies while I ask you to reconsider, to borrow your own distinction, ** the necessity and the justice" of the clause. Or rather, since these are in fact convertible terms, since, if the one can be proved, the other must soon follow, let us use a slightly different method, first let us look at the clause from a statesman's point of view, considering only what is the likeliest way of extending and facilitating national education, without regard to any controversies of rehgion. These we will take into account afterwards. But at present let us confine ourselves to this point — Is the Con- science Clause likely to promote or retard national education ? 10 THE CONSCIENCE CLAUSE, I start from your premises ; but tliey have not led me to your conclusion. Every word that you say of the immense importance of education for the true welfare of our nation, I assent to ** toto animo." But your plan appears to me to defeat your purpose. You would encourage education by discouraging zeal for it. You would substitute an education which few would care for, and which those who are most zealous for education repudiate, for one which calls out the energies of all parties. You would paralyze hand and foot in the body politic to render it more active. The question, so far, is one of economy. You may save something ; I will not stop to calcu- late how little, by this contrivance for having what will be two schools under one roof. But will this be any saving in the long run, if it freeze the current of private contributions, which flows largely under the present system? It is no true economy in a master to stint his servants ; or, if you have to sub- sidise allies, to clog your subsidy with conditions which dispirit and estrange them. ^ The economy which is pleaded for the clause, is the economy of starvation. It would deaden the efforts of individuals all over the kingdom, to save the expense of a second school in certain places : for a system of education which disregards the diversities of behef in a nation Hke ours, may suit a " Department of Education" but will not suit the Enghsh people. I look in vain through your pages for proof that the "denominational" system has failed. You say that it is " coming to a dead lock. ' ' The new schools CAN IT BE JUSTIFIED? 11 ■which are springing up every where, or rather which were rising so fast till checked by this cold wind from Downing-street, are signs, not of death, but of life and progress. I cannot even find the *' com- plaints " which call for a '^ conscience clause." One solitary instance you allege, of a Wesleyan deputa- tion to the Privy Council in 1847. I must again refer you to Canon Trevor ^ He cites the Secretary of the British and Foreign Society who, '^when asked, if he knew any cases in which hardship and injustice have arisen from the want of a con- science clause, replies, ' I cannot call to mind at this moment particular cases,' and again repeats, *I can- not call to mind at this moment any such case.' " Consider the vast strides which the education of the poor has made lately. Would it be statesmanlike to risk all this by a change of system ? Before trying such an experiment, we want something more than Dr. Temple's imaginary grievances of imaginary children. On the other hand, what do those say who are really acquainted with the facts ? ^* Out of 104 schools which sent answers to a similar question in the Monthlij Paper of tJie National Society ^ No- vember, 1865, in five only, or 4*8 per cent, of the whole number, had there been any withdrawals of Dissenting children on account of the religious teaching*." Surely a very heavy *'onus probandi " rests on those who advocate the change. ' " The Church and the World," p. 324. * " Nat. Soc. Monthly Paper," May, 1866. 12 THE CONBCIENOE CLAUSE, I regret still more to differ from you on the religious aspect of our question. I deplore as ear- nestly as yourself our unhappy divisions. I long as earnestly for the re-union of Christians. But, here again, the way which you recommend appears to me to sacrifice the end wliich we have in view. We shall never heal Dissent by closing our eyes to its existence. In your zeal for '* comprehension" you would have men break down the barriers which, as they believe, sever truth from error. You would eradicate Dissent by leaving it notliing to dissent from. You aim at ** unity in spirit" without agree- ment in belief; unity in name without the reality. You remind us that *' Catholic" means *' Universal." Let me remind you that the one word as well as the other means, not a mere aggregate of discordant, incoherent atoms, but the oneness of a great and consistent whole. You say (p. 43) that the teacher ought not to complain if compelled to keep back part of what he believes to be the truth, on the ground that **the half is better than the whole." Are you forgetting that ** a half-truth is often the worst lie," and that the ** suppressio veri " is not in favour with Englishmen? ** Comprehension " is a very fine word, but in one sense it contradicts itself. The more you widen the area of believers, the more you narrow the area of belief. It would lead us too far afield if I were to attempt to argue how far the differences between Dissent and the Church are material. Doubtless some are CAN IT BE JUSTIFIED ? 18 less so than others. But that is nothing to the point. The Conscience Clause covers all, even the greatest differences, and the several Articles of the Christian Faith, like the component parts of any truth, are so inextricably intertwined, so closely de- pendent one on the other, that you can hardly omit one of them without disturbing the proportions of the whole. When you say (p. 10) that it seems to you ** unaccountable" in the Church people of Llanelly that they declined the compulsory *' comprehensive- ness" of the ** Conscience Clause," I feel with regret that you do not attach the same importance as I ^0 — I will not say to dogmatic teaching in religion, for the word has a bad as well as a good sense — but to definite religious teaching. It is a mockery to offer the reading of a chapter in the Bible 'in place of this. There is indeed in our Catechism % and in the Prayer-book generally, a << comprehensiveness" far wider than those imagine who view it only from without, or with feelings embittered by theological hatred. But such <* comprehensiveness" as this, I fear, will not satisfy you. What substitute for it do you propose? No ** Eirenicon" can succeed which involves the sacrifice of men's deepest con- victions. An isolated case, and untested by time, like that of Hoxton, proves nothing. History tells us how visions, like your own, of ** comprehension" have floated ere now before the eyes of statesmen ^ In saying (p. 43) that " only the Catechism is objected to," you mean, of course, the substance of it, not merely its words. 14 THE CONSCIENCE CLAUSE, and churchmen ; and how they faded mto air. You complain that the Church of England opposes a **Non possumus" to your overtures. Our ** Non possumus" — and I would say it for the sects as for the Church — is only this. We cannot undertake to teach what we do not believe to be true. Let me explain, that it is the compulsoriness of the clause that I demur to. Cases there may be, and, I think, must be, requiring the stringent uni- formity of religious teaching to be relaxed by a wise discretion of the managers. With the greatest deference on every ground for the revered name of Sir J. T. Coleridge, I cannot see how this rule of uniform teaching, unlike other rules of the kind, is to admit of no exceptions. The difference between compulsion from without and discretion from witliin is every thing. It is the difference, as Mr. Trevor ^ well says, "between asking a friend to dinner and having a regiment of dragoons quartered on you for ever." It is the difference between almsgiving and communism ; or, to come nearer to the point, between a soldier absenting himself from drill, and being excused by his commanding officer. It is the difference, if I may remind you of College days, between an undergraduate getting leave from his tutor to miss a lecture, and his taking *^ French leave." The clause subverts alike the disciphne of the school and the freedom of the managers ; the ' " The Church and the World," p. 308. CAN IT BE JUSTIFIED ? 15 discretionary power adapts itself, with an elasticity which Boards are apt to disapprove of, to the vary- ing exigencies of time and place. Beyond this I see no room for further compro- mise. In fact, our "denominational" system is itself the compromise. The State now cannot but recognize the varieties of creed which exist within its borders. No longer identical with, or, to speak more strictly, co-extensive with the Church, it must provide for these diversities in the education of its people. By encouraging each religious community to do its utmost in its own way, it utilizes their efforts for the common good, for the prevention of ignorance and vice. Thus we have a system which combines the advantages of the State system and of the Voluntary system ; which gives us,* not State schools, but schools aided by the State. It gathers from all quarters our involuntary contributions in the shape of taxes ; and then, as the clouds give back in showers to the earth the vapours which have ascended from it, it distributes to each and all their share — at least it professes to do so — as ** grants " proportioned to their requirements and deserts. Here is a system in accordance at once with our English notions of liberty and our English love of order. You speak of the ** rights of conscience." But what you propose violates those rights in the managers of schools. The present system respects the consciences of Church and sect ; yours insults them. It is rightly called an " y^n^i-conscience 16 THE CONBOIENCE CLAUSE, clause." You speak of ** parental liberty." This is safe ; for each parent may choose whether or not he will send his child to any given school ; only, while there, it must conform to the rules. The attendance at Church stands on a rather different footing ; because it is not so integral a part of the discipline of school. On this point it seems more difficult to adjust the respective claims of the parent and of the teacher who fills for the time the parent's place. But this is not the question. As to inter- ference with the teaching given witliin the walls of the school, I repeat that I cannot see the way to any compromise which will not be a revolution in our present system. The Dean of Ely's proposal is no instance to the contrary, for it is no ** conscience clause " at all. It is merely a suggestion to the managers of Church schools not to forget to use the discretionary power entrusted to them. The ** denominational" system may not be very symmetrical to look at, but it has worked well. Like many other productions of our English soil, it is none the worse for being somewhat anomalous. Are you willing to give up all that it has done, for the sake of a theory ? Once estrange the sympa- thies of people who care about their creed, by coercing their right to teach as they believe, and the result will be — not the formless, colourless, Hfeless syncretism which you desire, but the secular education which you deprecate. For we should have to fall back on a school-rate, in default of CAN IT BE JUSTIFIED ? 17 voluntary assistance ; and a school-rate, as one ' of the foremost advocates, with yourself, of the ''Conscience Clause" has well said, involves the system of compulsory and secular education. A "conscience clause" brings with it secular educa- tion immediately, so far as it goes ; for it leaves nothing else to the child whom it removes from the religious teaching. A "conscience clause " means the disruption of the alliance between the State and religion, which, as you allow, ought to be preserved, it* possible, for the sake of all : let us extend the iielping hand of the State, if you will, to poor and sparsely populated districts, by relaxing the stereo- typed requirements which exclude them from the aid to which, as citizens and taxpayers, its inha- bitants are justly entitled. Let us develope, if need be, the denominational system yet more fully, so that each and every community may, so far as possible, be aided to train its own children in its own way. Let us discard the false economy which argues that one school must invariably be cheaper than two. Thus the blessings which you extol deservedly, of "general enlightenment and moral elevation" may be diffused more and more widely among us. But I do not think that a compulsory syncretism will approve itself to the people of England. Nor do I think that a Prussian or an American system of national education will find favour here. Even those ' Eev. D. Melville, in "Nat. Soc. Monthly Paper," May, 18G6, p. 102. B 18 THE CONSCIENCE CLAUSE, CAN IT BE JUSTIFIED ? who are most euainourecl of such systems will be slow to introduce them into England, if they will bear in mind how vast a disparity of circumstances renders the analogy which might be drawn from those countries inapplicable to our own. I trust that I have not in any way done injustice to your able and interesting pamphlet; and, with sincere regret that your conclusions are so different from my own, I remain, Kev. and dear Sir, Faithfully yours, I. GKEGOKY SMITH. Tedstone Delamere, June 1, 18GG. THE END. GILBERT AND RiVINGTON, PRINTKRS, ST. JOHN's SQUARE, LONDON. ^rff' > , «♦* -• y- *£^Sv*. :i'i^ •",T >,V ' : ^-^ .*' ■■• i^'V ^C^i ^^-^