i^^«i "*»■ & *m.. \ DENOMINATIONALISTS AND SECULAEISTS. BY FEEDEEICK CALVEKT, ESQ., Q.a LONDON: WILLIAM RIDGWAT, 1G9, PICCABILLY, W. 187G. Price Sixpence. DENOMINATION ALISTS AND SECULARISTS. Preface. This title is taken from the heading of a cor- respondence which appeared in the Times^ early in the month of November, 1875. The most striking part of that correspondence consisted in two very remarkable letters from the Hon. Auberon Herbert. After having read the first of those two letters, I addressed to the public press a letter, which I venture here to reprint, as throwing some addi- tional light on some of the topics discussed in the folloAving pages. To the JEditor of the Standard. Sir, — In the Times of the 26th ult., there appeared a letter from Mr. Anberon Herbert in favour of the Canada phxn, by which " every subscriber to a Voluntary School may get his municipality to receive his subscription in place of his rate." I trust that Mr. Herbert's letter will receive all the consider- ation which it really deserves. During all the long struggle upon the subject of church rates it was always alleged by Dissenters, that to be com- pelled to make payments in respect of services of which rate- payers disapproved was a serious grievance. Mr. O'Connell stated the principle in terse language — " No Christian sect ought to be called upon to pay for the religion of another sect." Mr. Divett, who took part in a very early stage of the struggle, said, " No man could be justly charged for the support of a religion from which he dissented." In 1834 Earl Spencer, IV then Lord Althorp, said, " The Dissenters, who were compelled to pay church rates, felt that they were compelled to pay for the administration of worship under a system which they did not apjDroye." Earl Russell spoke of " moderate men, Dis- senters, who really felt it a hardship and grievance that, while supporting their own places of worship, they should be com- pelled to contribute to other religious edifices, which they never entered, and against the doctrines preached in which they protested." The same argument is applicable to the subject of education in connection with religion. Yet the same political parties, which struggled successfully for the enforcement of these principles upon the subject of church rates, now repudiate them upon the subject of elementary education: and members of the Church of England are com- pelled to pay for a system of education to which they most strongly object. Well may Mr. Auberon Herbert say {Times ^ JsTovember 26th, 1875), " If we (i. e., the secularists) ourselves have suffered from hurt consciences, are we to repair our own losses by passing the injury on? The taxation of which we complained was that under which a man, who was no less a good citizen than his neighbour, no less regardful of public duties, no less keen in the matter of education, contributed to the support of a system which he did not approve." I have quoted the language which was used on the subject of church rates. Those rates had existed from time immemorial. Almost all property had been acquired subject to them, if the majority of the ratepayers thought proper to impose them. They could be imposed by no other authority. The Church system for which they were collected offered its services to all, but compelled no one to attend them. Observe the contrast of the education rate. It is a new tax, imposed upon property for the first time in 1870. It has no title derived from immemorial castom. It must rest upon correct principles, or it has no kind of justification. Instead of depending always upon the will of the majority of rate- payers, it may, under certain circumstances, be forced upon the entire body of ratepayers by a Government Board. The champions of Board Schools are in many places avowedly endeavouring to destix^y Voluntary Schools. (See Report of the National Education League, Birmingham, 1875.) Wherever they succeed, they will compel children to attend Boai"d Schools against the conscientious conviction of nu- merous parents. Whether they succeed or fail, they will compel numerous ratepayers to join in the creation and main- tenance of schools, to which they have strong conscientious objections. Wherever a Voluntary School exists as well as a Board School, it is a great injustice of the present law that the advo- cate of a Voluntary School, after he has subscribed his share for the maintenance of the school which he believes to be thoroughly good, and which fulfils the requirements of the Government, is compelled to pay for the maintenance of another school which he believes to be wrong in principle, and to pay as much for the latter as his neighbour pays, who approves of it and pays for no other. Clearly there should be no such liability to a double payment. The interest of the public will in many cases require the existence of both classes of schools. Let there be fair play and no favour in their rivalry. Handicap neither competitor. Do not let the difference be one of finance. But let there be a fair competition between Board School and Voluntary- Schools which is the better of the two. I am, your obedient servant, FREDERICK CALVERT. 38, Upper Grosvenor Street, December l^t, 1875. DENOMINATIONALISTS AND SECULARISTS. Five years have now elapsed since the Elementary Intro- Education Bill became law. A measure of that "^^^^°"- magnitude was entitled to a fair trial. There has now been ample time for observing the operation of the Act ; and we can see whether the prospects^ which the promoters of the Bill put forward as reasons for passing it, are likely to be realized. The subject to which I especially desire to call Subject attention is the relation between the Schools ^^^^^^^ created under the Act and those previously exist- ing : that is to say, between rate-supported schools commonly called Board Schools, and schools created and maintained by voluntary subscriptions, which are commonly called Voluntary or Denomi- national Schools. That I may pursue the inquiry fairly, I will Debates quote the language used in Parliament by leading ^duca^ authorities, as to the relation which was then tion Act .,11 of 1870. mtended. Mr. As Mr. Gladstone was the leadino^ member of the Glad- stone. o Cabinet which brought forward the measure, I begin my quotations with portions of his speeches. '' The machinery,"* he said, " of Vohmtary Schools, we found not only existing in this country, but overspreading it to an immense extent, and on every ground, whether of that which is due to the promoters of these schools, to their benevolent and self-denying labours and the success which they have obtained, or whether on the ground of that which is due to the purpose which we have in view, and its effectual, speedy, uniform and economical attainment, we adopted this principle also as a fundamental principle of this Bill ; that we would frankly and without jealousy, endeavour to employ the machinery of Voluntary Schools, as far as it was available, in aid of our object. But, feeling that that large deficiency, which is now observable in the country, could not be made up by voluntary schools alone, we proposed to fall back upon the principle of rating, and to make use of it by way of supplementing the gap which we saw before us." SpeakingI of ^'the existing Denominational Schools," and of their powerful agency for the purpose of good secular instruction " through the vigorous action of religious zeal and love," Mr. Gladstone said, " Nothing except folly can induce us to refuse to avail ourselves of an opportunity so * 16 June, 1870. - f June 23, 1870. 3 valuable." He also said* that " it was in the mind of Parliament, as part of the measure, to provide increased means for the support of voluntary schools." Lord Aberdare, at that time Home Secretary, Mr. said,f ^' He should wish to state what was the real ^^^ ' pnnci'ple of the measure, it was essentially a ^^"^^ supplementary measure. The Government had dare, constantly maintained that this was its character- They had no secret intention of overthrowing the present system^ to which they wished to give a fair field and no favour." Mr. Lowe, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. referring to Voluntary Schools, and to their promoters,:}: said, "' I rejoice that this measure is framed in the spirit of justice, fairness, and gratitude towards such persons ; and that instead of committing the unpardonable rashness of sweep- ing away the present state of things, this Bill accepts all that has been done hitherto, and steps in to supplement the present system and make good its shortcomings. , / . The Bill is founded, not on any abstract dogma, not on any theory which we are anxious to cram down people's throats as to what will be the best system of national education ; but it is based on English good sense, it appreciates what exists already, and tries to supplement and improve^ instead of to destroy y * June 24,1870. j June 26, 1870. % ^^arcli 15, 1870. 1* The Mar- Lord Ripon, who represented the Cabinet in the Eipon. House of Lords, upon the Bill, said,* " It should be an object to maintain and foster the existing system and to reject no agency which, at the present time, affords or may afford, the means of a sound and efficient education — while taking measures to supplement it where it is defective, and to extend elementary education throughout the whole country. It is u'pon this principle that the Bill is founded. We desire to maintain what exists. The Bill pro- poses to maintain all existing schools at present in receipt of Government aid on their present footing. We desire that they should continue and extend; and needlessly to destroy one of them would be to inflict a great mischief." Mr. Mr. Forster, the Vice-President of the Council, who brought in the measure, said,| " we must take care not to destroy in hidlding up — not to destroy the existing system in. introducing a new one. In solving this problem, there must be, consistently with the attainment of our object, the least possible expenditure of public money ; the utmost endeavour not to injure existing and efficient schools, and the most careful absence of all encouragement to parents to neglect their children. I trust I have taken the House thus far with me. Our object is to complete the present voluntary system, tofillup gaps^ sparing the public money where it can be done without, procuring as much as we can the assist- * June 20, 1870. f Feb. 17, 1870. Torster. \ ance of the parents, and welcoming, as much as we rightly can, the co-operation and aid of those bene- volent men Avho desire to assist their neighbours." The members of the Opposition repeatedly made statements to the effect that they accepted the measure distinctly as supplemental. Their views will be sufficiently shown by the language of their leader, the Duke of Richmond. After mentioning the work of education carried on in the voluntary schools, he added " I am glad to see by the measure The which they have introduced, that Her Majesty's ^^'f® ^^ Government have not ignored those exertions, and mond. that they propose to recognize the existing state of things as regards the education of the people : they only supplement that system." It is clear, upon perusal of these passages, that inten- the Bill was promoted as a Bill for the establish- ti^"*! ^^ ^ . rarlia- ment of schools which should supplement^ and by ment. no means supplant the voluntary schools; and that distinctly upon this principle it received the support of the members of the Opposition. In other words, Parliament — not a mere majority of either or of both Houses, but, both parties in both Houses of Parliament — intended that the two classes of schools should co-exist, that they should have completely fair play in their rivalry, that neither of them should destroy the other, and that Board Schools should be established only in those places in which the Voluntary Schools were insufficient to receive all the children of the district. " The 6 principle is/' said Mr. Forster,* '' to enforce pro- vision where provision is necessary, but not to enforce it where it is unnecessary." Govern- But the Government went still further. Having Aid to proclaimed these principles, and stated these ^®^ prospects of the operation of the Act, they gave tary notice of a definite period, during which they Schools, oifered great pecuniary encouragement to the creation of new Voluntary Schools. Under this encouragement, very large sums were subscribed both by public bodies and by individual contri- butors in all parts of the country, and many new Voluntary Schools were established. "Whether I now proceed to inquire, whether the intentions tention ^^ Parliament are being carried out ? that is, of Parlia- whether, under the operation of the Act, the two been ful- classes of schools are upon an equal footing ; and filled. whether the Board Schools are acting as supple- mentary to the Voluntary Schools. I^^^- Language is now adopted, very different from used that which was heard before the passing of the Act. since , . The wish or expectation, and sometimes both, are was expressed, that Board Schools may and will passe . universally supplant Voluntary Schools. Very ominous language is held by men of great influence Mr. and authority. Even Mr. Forster, who, while promoting the Bill, spoke of ^'filling up gaps,'* recently used the following expressions.! " We * June 27, 1870. f See Times, Nov. 23, 1875, at Bradford. found the schools already existing, and we said we had to fill up the gaps and supply the additional schools. If we had set to work to do more than that^ I don't think we should have done anything ^ Mark what follows. " lam not surprised that voluntary subscribers should not like to continue subscribing. I expected many would^take that line, and I expect it still." How Mr. Forster in 1870 could with these expectations take the course which he then pursued, it is hard to understand. But the point material for my present purpose is^ that he is evidently of opinion that the double payment^ that is, the payment of rates in addition to subscriptions, will be in a great measure fatal to A^oluntary Schools. Certainly he is better qualified than any other man to form a correct opinion. Lord Sandon Viscount too says,* " Board Schools are gradually destroying Sandon. all other schools." The extreme opponents of the Voluntary system. The that is, a body at Birmingham who call themselves -'^^^o"®- " The National Education League," anticipate the same results. They say in their last Report,*)* ''The increasing transfer of Voluntary Schools we know; and the panic amongst the Denomination- alists also testifies that Boards are making satisfactory progress, and that before many years elapse, the administration of public elementary education will be entirely under the control of the rate-payers and their representatives." * See Speech in Morning Post, Dec. 3, 1875. t See Report of Nov. 10, 1875, p. 19. 8 Pros- Thus we have the leading authorities of the late to Yo- ^^^ ^^6 present Government, and also the chief hintary opponents of the Voluntary system, uniting in the anticipation that the Board Schools will supplant instead of supplementing, Voluntary Schools; and it appears to be by no means improbable, that, if the law is not altered, the prospects which induced Par- liament to pass the Act will be ultimately defeated. Whenever the operation of a law is at variance Eeasons with the object for which it was passed, there is amend- J^Timd facie a sufficient reason for legislation by ing the -yy^y of amendment. But, in the instance of the Elementary Education Act, not only is this the case, but moreover the provisions of the Act itself and the circumstances under which it was passed, and the comparative merits of Voluntary and Board Schools, supply very strong additional reasons why the Act should be amended. Some of these reasons I will now state. Powers Let us first observe the means which are being upon"^ used to supplant the Voluntary Schools. It is not Board pretended that, if a Board School and a Voluntary School are each of them well managed, the Board School is superior in efficiency to the Voluntary School. The Report of the League distinctly tells us that the Board School is triumphant by the employment of two most powerful engines, which the Act has conferred upon School Boards exclusively^ viz. Compulsory RateS; and Compulsory Attendance at School. 9 The Rate is not only an income practically un- The Rate, limited, for the discharge of current expenses, it also supplies the means of borrowing large sums.* Thus, if it is desired to establish a Board School in any district, the sum required for the cost of site and building may be at once obtained by borrowing upon the security of the Rate. The cost * Extract from a Report of the Finance Committee of the London School Board issued on the 28rd Nov. 1875. ** The Finance Committee have drawn up a statement of the amount paid on account of sites, building, etc. to 20th Sept. 1875, and an estimate of the amount which the Board will probably require up to 31 March 1877. Amounts paid for purchase of sites, erection of buildings and furniture, to 29th September, 1875 £1,159,221 Amounts still unpaidf in accordance with resolu- tions passed by the Board to 3 1st Oct. 1875 309,295 1,828,716 Estimated further amounts required : (a.) For purchase of land, Interests in property not yet settled . . ^126,524 Property scheduled 1875-6 156,300 282,824 (b) For erection of buildings and furniture, contracts not yet accepted . . 454,880 737,704 £2,566,420 t i.e. Contracts in process of completion. 10 of maintenance from the time of the opening of the school will also be secure by reason of the rate. And this rate will be raised from all persons liable to rates in general, whel-her they are in favour of the school, or opposed to it, whether they pay on account of education the bare amount of the rate, or are also supporting an efficient Voluntary School. On the other hand, if it is desired to establish a Voluntary School, no sum can be raised on the security of promised subscriptions. And since December 31, 1870, no sum can be granted by Government for site or building. Therefore the capital sum required for these purposes must be subscribed in the first instance. The cost of maintenance from the opening of the school must likewise be provided by the subscribers. Then, when both systems are at work, the Board, having at command an income practically unlimited, can, by the offer of excessive salaries, draw teachers away from the Voluntary Schools. In the Rej^ort of the Education League, already referred to, is the following passage, " In Norfolk, parishes were found, in which the effects of compulsion were most gratifying, side by side with others, where, although new Schools had been provided, there had been no teachers for one or two years, because the voluntary managers had been unable to offer a salary sufficiently tempting." — (See Report, p. 4.)* * There is a clause in the Act which presses hardly upon Yoluntary Schools in poor districts which have no endowment. SlOU 11 Then as to compulsion. Under the existing law Compul- there cannot be compulsion without the establish- ment of a Board. The wisdom or justice of such an arrangement is not apparent. There may be parishes, where compulsion is needed, but where no Board is required ; where, indeed, the material for the formation of an efficient Board can scarcely be said to exist. Suppose that in any given parish one school only, and that a Voluntary School, exists, and is sufficient under the provisions of the Act, and satisfactory to the parishioners. Why refuse compulsory powers in respect of this school, unless a Board is created ? The Voluntary, as well as the Board School is carrying out the work, which was the object of the Act. Both Schools are recognized by the Government as efficient. Both receive the grant of the Privy Council. The reason commonly alleged is that in these Voluntary Schools a peculiar form of religion is taught, and that if a parent objects to this form, it is a grievance to him to be obliged to By Section 97 it is enacted " that such grant," (i.e. the Parliamentary grant) " shall not for any year exceed the income of the school for that year, which was derived from voluntary contributions and from school fees and from any sources other than the Parliamentary grant." As the income of a Voluntary School depends upon voluntary subscriptions, the amount of it is often unavoidably small in poor parishes, and consequently there is a reduction of the Parliamentary grant under this clause. The income of a Board School depends upon the rate, and is easily kept sufficiently high to prevent reduction under this head. 12 send his child to a school of this kind : in short, the so-called " religious difficulty " is pleaded. How far such a plea is a sufficient reason may be at once determined. We know that the withdrawal of a child from the religious lesson of any school is an event of the rarest possible occurrence ; that prac- tically the religious difficulty is unknown in schools, and heard of only in the House of Commons ; and that after all there is the Conscience Clause, in this instance a complete protection to parent and child. On the other hand, in Board Schools the law does not require the teaching of any religion at all. To a religious parent it is a most serious grievance if he is obliged to send his child to a school in which no religion is taught, and the Conscience Clause in this instance gives no protection at all. Yet the power of compulsion is conferred upon Board Schools. Attack The next reason for Parliamentary interference ^ is found in the fact that the party who have set on tary foot the so-called " National Education League" are openly exerting themselves to crush Voluntary Schools. According to their views, the two classes of schools are not to co- exist. Absolute destruc- tion of Voluntary Schools is the object avowedly sought. The League are sparing no efforts to bring about this result. They tell us that *' there has been, and will be considerable elec- toral action on their part." Wherever Liberal Schools. Q candidates "have entered into a contest, tlie^<^*=^^^°^ the agents and friends of tlie League have exerted League, themselves to secure a recognition, by the adopted representative of the party, of its programme and principles."* " The whole area of England and Wales has been mapped out into districts," " agents have been appointed everywhere," and " each agent has become a centre of educational activity. He not only exerts an influence by means of his corre- spondence and personal visits, but, with the co- operation of the local press, he is often able to shape public opinion, and to stimulate effort for placing education under representative control." " There is, in short, an active 'propaganda for promotion of the object of the League." And what is that object ? It is two-fold. First, the abolition of all Volun- tary, that is to say, of all Denominational Schools which it represents as being opposed to the interests of National Education. ( !) Secondly, the prohibi- tion of religious teaching in all day-schools. Since this active and aggressive League is openly endea- vouring to act upon and through all School Boards, surely Parliament ought to interfere, and so to amend the Act as not to leave in the hands of School Boards exclusively those two powerful engines of compulsory rating and compulsory attendance, which, as the Act at present operates, are withheld from schools in which religion is distinctly taught. * See Report of the Executive Committee presented to the meeting, lOth Nov., 1875. 14 Claims of J have now shown the disadvantage under which tary the Voluntary Schools lie through the powers con- Schools, ferred upon the rival system of schools. I have shown that they have to contend, not only against the rivalry of the other system, but also against the organized activity of a body which is avowedly striving to put an end to all rivalry by the extinc- tion of Voluntary Schools. I proceed to show that the promoters of Voluntary Schools have a fair claim to the support of the Legislature on account of their great services in the cause of National Education. No doubt the state of Education re- quired Legislative aid in the session of 1870; but the statistics which I am about to quote will show that the promoters of Voluntary Schools deserved to be aided, not thwarted, in their endeavours ; that they had, before that time, established a strong title to the utmost favour of the Legislature, or at any rate to strict impartiality. It is calculated that the total sum expended by the Church of England between the years 1811 and December 31, 1874 (the latest period to which re- turns have been made), is considerably more than twelve millions,* and that during the same period * There are different modes of making the calculation. On the 31st of August, 1874, there was in Voluntary Schools accommodation for 2,715,062 children. Up to that time the average cost of site and building was £5. 8s 6d, according to the calculation based on the Blue Book. The entire cost on this footing was nearly £15,000,000, from which the Govern" 15 the cost of maintenance of the same schools has amounted to fifteen millions sterling. Thus — For site and building . ... £12,000,000 For maintenance ..... 15,000,000 Forming a total of at least . . £27,000,000 To this sum was added by Government Grants from 18.39 to Dec. 31, 1874, rather less than £2,000,000. Of the above sum of twenty-seven millions or upwards, £1,082,983 has been subscribed by the Church of England for building and enlarging schools in the five years ending Dec. 31, 1874; and in the five years ending Aug. 31, 1874, the volun- tary contributions to the maintenance of the 'same schools have amounted to £1,987,979. Thus — For building and enlarging . . £1,082,983 For maintenance 1,987,979 Forming a total of £3,070,962 subscribed by the Church of England since the jpassing of the Education Act, ment aid must be deducted, an amount about £2,000,000. There remains a sum of about £13,000,000. A report of tbe House of Commons shows that the cost per child in 14 large towns, which are specified, for Board Schools, has been £12. 10s. The rise of prices is, of course, one chief cause of diiference. But it is a fair inference that the amount calcu- lated for the Voluntary Schools is by no means excessive. 16 But a very large number of schools, during the last five years, have been built and enlarged, and also maintained, without aid from Government ; and therefore the amount of £3,070,962 should be augmented by a very large unknown quantity be- fore we could arrive at an exact statement of the amount actually spent by the Church for providing school accommodation in that period. During the same five years the amount volun- tarily expended for British, Wesleyan, Roman Catholic, and other Schools, not connected with the Church of England, all of which were aided by Government Grants was For building and enlarging . . £120,979 For maintenance, in Schools re- ceiving annual grants . . . 547,842 For ditto, in Schools visited for inspection only . . . , . 11,015 £679,836 Therefore in the last ^ye years alone, the sums voluntarily contributed to Schools under inspection have amounted to — From the Church of England . £3,070,962 From other religious bodies . . 679,836 Forming a total in five years of £3,750,798 See the Reports of the National Society. 17 Nor must it be supposed, tliat the sums thus ContH voluntarily contributed have come entirely from ^^ ^n wealthy persons. Large contributions in money, classes. given out of very small incomes, have come from the clergy; large contributions too from all classes of the laity; some in public subscriptions, some in private gifts, whether in land, in money, in labour, or in materials ; some in offertories ; some in bequests; some in the gratuitous teaching of the wives and daughters of both clergy and laity — all classes combining to support schools in which children are to receive secular and religious training. Thus these Voluntary Schools are not, as has been sometimes represented, the pets of any particular class, but the joint good work of all classes of the community. We must also have regard to the entire number Accom- of children throughout England and Wales, for ^°^^r^ whom accommodation has been provided in Volun- Volun- tary Schools ; and to the proportion which it bears Schools. to the whole number requiring education. It appears from a return presented to the House of Commons, that the number of Voluntary Schools actually inspected in the year ending August 31, was— In 1870 . . 8,281 In 1874 . . 12,307 and the accommodation provided in them was — In 1870 for 1,875,584 children. In 1874 for 2,715,062 children. 2 18 The entire number of children requiring ac- commodation was', in 1871, (the Census year), according to the calculation in the Blue Books, 3,224,580.* "Who are To talk about education, or even to promote it friends with the money of other people, needs but little of Edu- trouble, and is very cheap philanthropy. But these financial statements and school statistics show clearly, who have been the real practical friends and promoters of education. They show something more ; namely, that the " spirit of justice, fairness and gratitude," with which, as Mr. Lowe said, Parliament intended to treat the promoters of Voluntary Schools, was indeed no more than their due. That intention has, as I have shown, been in a great measure defeated by the operation of the Act ; and it is now the duty of Parliament to make amends to those public bene- factors by at least putting their schools upon an equal footing with those established by Boards. Compa- But while speaking of the munificence of the pensive-" supporters of Voluntary Schools, it will not be ness of Board * gee Eeport of Education Committee, p. xiv. note : — and Vo- « 4^(306,544! is the number of children from 3 to 13, for whom (Schools, elementary education fails to be provided in our schools ; but if we assume that each child goes to school for seven years out of the ten of its proper school life, there ought to be 3,224,580 children under daily instruction in eflBcient schools." The Education Act includes children from 5 to 13, instead of from 3 to 13. I have no means of ascertaining the number of children in 1874. 19 amiss to notice at the same time their economy. Board Schools are found to be more costly than Voluntary Schools. Canon Gregory's pamphlet* upon this subject renders any discussion upon it here quite unnecessary. He shows conclusively that the cost per child which is thrown, in Board Schools, upon the rates, greatly exceeds the cost per child which, in Voluntary Schools, is thrown upon the subscribers; and that, without any cor- responding increase in efficiency. There are two causes for this greater expensiveness. One is, that men are apt to be more lavish with other people's money than with their own. The other, that Boards entirely fail to elicit the gratuitous assistance which is freely given to Voluntary Schools. They have, as they them- selves have stated, to pay for everything, and to pay for it at the highest market price. The question whether the Act ought to be Public amended may be considered from another point of ^^^ favour view. Suppose the Government in 1870 had set ^^ ^^■ , . . luntary to work to do more than supplement the existmg Schools. system and fill up gaps : suppose they had even hinted at a system destructive of the then existing schools, what would have happened ? Is not Mr. Forster quite right in saying that in that case the Government would have done nothing at all ? In * See " The Cost of Voluntary Schools and Board Schools. By "Robert Gregory, M.A., Canon of St. Paul's." p. 6. 2* 20 other words^, that the Bill would have been at once thrown out? The idea of destroying]: schools which at an enormous cost were educating much more than two-thirds of the children of our poorer classes would have awakened no small indignation. Mr. Observe the language of Mr. Mundella : — ^' The ~^!|^" Member for Stroud had remarked in the course of a speech more distinguished by culture than by charity, that the public faith was pledged to the maintenance of the existing schools. Well, he did not say that the public faith was absolutely pledged to maintain them in their present state ; but at all events they had done a noble work, which Parliament had neglected to do. He should indeed be one of the most ungrateful of men, if he did not acknowledge that he owed to one of these schools what little education he received in his early youth. If public faith was not pledged to the maintenance of these schools, public policy and public gratitude are, although some honour- able gentlemen seemed to think that we ought to commence a new system of national education by destroying the only stock in trade we had to begin business with.'' Since 1870 there has been a great increase in schools and expenditure on the Voluntary System.* The character of the teaching has continually im- * The whole number of children of school age in 1871 was 3,224,580, The accommodation in inspected Voluntary Schools in 1874 was for 2,715,062, more than J our -fifths of the above. 21 proved, and if the destruction of the Voluntary Schools would have been generally condemned in 1870, their claim to public favour has only increased in the interval. In dealing with the subject in respect of its Distinc- connection with relioion, it is remarkable what ^^^ ^® ^' ^ ' gious concurrence of opinion there is, that teaching in teaching, religion should be distinctive. On this point many leading authorities, Nonconformists as well as Churchmen, strong Liberals as well as Conserva- tives, have expressed themselves very decidedly. Mr. Richards, the member for Merthyr Tydvil, aMr. Nonconformist and strong Liberal, said,* '' }xe ' wanted not only religious education, but distinctive and positive religious teaching ; for he had no faith in a colourless and bloodless kind of religious teaching,' out of which everything that was essential had been eliminated." Sir Charles Dilke said,f '' In my SirChas. humble opinion the exclusion of catechism is not ^i^^®- much of an improvement in practice, and is no improvement at all in principle." Mr. Gladstone Mr. showed what important features in Church of I ^ ^ stone. England schools he considered formularies to be; he said, J '' The concession is a very large one which allows of the exclusion of these formularies, and the catechism, that instrument by which the Reformed Church has worked for 300 years in the instruction of youth." * Hans. vol. ccii, p. 504;. f Vol. ccii. p. 511. t Vol. ccii. p. 1259. 22 Eeligious By the Act of 1870 the use of formularies in teachmg ;3Qax.^ Schools is prohibited. The character of the depen- ... . dent on rehgious instruction given in those Schools de- masters P^^^s? therefore, entirely upon the schoolmaster. The schoolmaster will almost always be selected for his proficiency in secular rather than in religious teaching; partly because secular instruc- tion alone is paid for by the Privy Council ; partly because a Board, selected by a mixed body of ratepayers, which may include Roman Catholics, Jews, and members of various sects, as well as of the Church, can rarely agree in the choice of a candidate of distinct religious opinions. Changes in the person of the schoolmaster, in the members of the Board, and in the Code, are all unfavourable to uniformity of teaching. It will be a serious disadvantage to children that their religious in- struction, if any at all is given, will not be " steadied," either by formularies, or by the super- intendence of some one whose position is a guaran- tee that he is well acquainted with the subject. Eights of These considerations are intimately connected parents. ^^.-^^ ^^^ ^-^j^^^ ^^ parents. The debates of 1870 teem with the assertion of parental rights. '^ We must not," says Mr. Forster,* "inflict on children ^^- a religious education to which parents object." '' Parents are the persons best fitted to determine religious or non-religious teaching." '^ The Bill must give complete protection to parents." " Vo- luntary Schools are successful, because parents have * Hansard, vol. ciii. pp. 85 — 88. 23 influence with them." " There is a general wish that children should have the religious instruction which parents desire." I need go no further with quotations. The same idea is again and again repeated by speakers of all parties. But, in spite of all these professions, Board Schools are by the Act prohibited from affording to Church of England parents the very right which, as Mr. Forster said, the parents ought to be allowed to exercise; namely, that of obtaining for their children the religious instruction which they desire to have. This, again, is a reason why Voluntary Schools ought to be retained. So long as both classes of Schools co-exist the parent has the power of selection. But if Denominational Schools were to be destroyed, while distinctive teaching in Board Schools is forbidden, and compulsory attendance in these Schools is enforced, there would be an end of the parents' liberty of action. Their children would be compelled to attend, and they themselves to support, a school from which the religious in- struction which they prefer is excluded by law. We hear much of measures being condemned as retrograde. Whether retrograde measures are good or bad depends upon circumstances. Where a mistake has been committed it is better to go back and correct it, than to go forward and make it worse. ^ IS^ecessity The admitted necessity of distinctive teaching of formu- Jaries. 24 shows the mjustice of the Cowper- Temple clause,* That clause forbids the use of formularies. Now, formularies, in their relation to education, are closely analogous to a liturgy in relation to religious services. The liturgy is a security to the congregation as to the prayers which the minister shall say in church. The formulary is a security to the parents as to the religious instruc- tion which shall be given in the schoolroom. Our Church services are offered to all our fellow- subjects, who may attend them or not, as they please. So education, according to the principles of the National Church, ought to be offered to all children who, under the guidance of their parents, p may accept or reject it. But even if the parents, laries for- the ratepayers, and the Board should all agree in lj^ ^^g approving and desiring formularies, the use of Cowper- them would be prevented in Board Schools, by clause. ^^^ Cowper- Temple clause. For there is no formu- lary on which all sects are agreed. Now, teaching by formularies is, as Mr. Gladstone has shown, a part of the system of the Church of England ; but it does not form a part of the system of the sects in general, whether religious Dissenters, or Secu- larists. The operation, therefore, of the clause destroys the Church's liberty of teaching, and * See Education Act, clause 14, No. 2 : " No religious catechism, or religious formulary, which is distinctive of any particular denomination, shall be tauglit in the school." 25 deprives the parent of his right of having his child instructed in the Church's formularies ; while it does not impede the teaching of the sects, who are further protected by the conscience clause. Surely Parliament ought to interfere, and to restore to the children of the working classes their right to have instruction in the principles and formularies of the National Church freely offered to them. Church Schools have always been open to the Church children of Dissenters. Formularies have ahvays Joie^rant been used in them. For some years past the conscience clause has been in operation. Church- men have been content that their schools and the schools of Dissenters should exist side by side. Neither party has attempted to crush the other. Surely this experience shows that Churchman may be tolerated by the State in the use of their formu- laries, without endangering the liberty of others. On the other hand, the conduct of the League League supplies a remarkable contrast. They proclaim i^^^^ler- uncompromising warfare, and strive to destroy the schools of all competitors. But even if the Cowper- Temple clause should Ten- be rej^ealed^ and liberty of religious teaching be]3^^^p^° granted to Board Schools, the necessity for re- Schools taining and supporting Voluntary Denominational come Schools would not cease. Even under the most ^^p^^r^^i- r 1 1 • • glOUS. favourable cnxumstances, and with perfect liberty of teaching secured to them, there is no rertaiiity 26 of religious education in any form being given in Board Schools. The law does not require it. There is not any obligation to read the Bible. No payment is provided for religious teaching. The pence, the rates, and the Government grant supply payment only for secular teaching. The exami- nation, the tests, and the honours of study and good conduct take the same direction. More than all, the credit of the master depends solely upon success in secular teaching. The Government Inspectors are expressly forbidden to examine in religious know- ledge. In other words, religion is only an extra, just as at Harrow and Eton music and dancing are extras. Extras are always excluded from the real activity of schools. Foreign lan- guages used to be extras at those great schools. That they might becoms the object of real study they were added to regular school studies. The consequence has been that they are no longer left out in the cold. Experi- Experience in America entirely supports the AmerSa ^i^tion that in schools analogous to our Board Schools religious teaching becomes impossible. First, there is a wrangle about what religious teaching should be given : then each party becomes tired of the strife; and the struggle ends after much bitter controversy in the abandonment of religion altogether. In corroboration of this view, Eeporfc I may quote the following passage from the report League ^^ ^^^ Birmingham League. '' The return recently 27 issued by the Education department showing the character of religious teaching in Board Schools proves that School Boards have been unable to arrive at any common ground of religious instruc- tion." The inference drawn by the League is that no religion at all should be taught in these schools. It has, however, been su^o-ested that the teaching Neces- of religion in day schools is unnecessary, because relio-ioua the children of even the poorest classes can learn teaching m Day- religion at home. I ask, How? and when? and Schools. where ? and from whom ? From the father, a Difficul- tradesman, clerk, or artisan, worn and tired with his ^^ }^Qxne day's work? Is the mother to teach ,wearied with teaching, the performance of her domestic duties as cook, and nurse, and laundress, and housemaid, all in her own person ? And where is the instruction 'to be given ? In the cottage or lodging, among all the inconveniences of a poor man's single living-room? The children have spent the day in school, and the evening in preparing the lessons for the morrow. What time is left for religious instruction? Both parent and child require rest and refreshment after the labours of the day. Then it is said that children can be taught Sunday- religion in the Sunday School. Sunday is a day for rest and recreation, not for labour. The child goes to the Sunday School, not to be grounded in the elements of religious knowledge ; for this, like secular knowledge, cannot be acquired without pains and mental exertion; but to be brought 28 under the genial influence of voluntary teachers, who strive to please and interest him, to prepare him for the religious services of Church or Chapel, and to win him to the love of all that is good. Those who value Sunday Schools most highly, and who speak from long experience, are agreed that the one day after the secular labours of the w^eek, even if it could be rightly devoted to the purpose, would be altogether insufficient for religious education. Lord Shaftesbury said '' Sunday Schools never do the work of Day Schools." -p, , I have already referred to an argument which is sion of sometimes used, that to compel a parent to main- teaching ^^^^' ^^ send his child to, a school, in which a form a posi- of Christianity not fully approved by him is taught, * would be an intolerable grievance. Such a griev- ance, however, is but a feather in the scale compared with that of the parent whose child is forced into a school where no religion at all is taught. For, let it not be supposed that the absence of religious instruction is a mere negative evil.* It is a positive evil, pregnant with the worst * " An eloquent orator says, I have heard of a father who objected to teach his child to pray. When that boy met with an accident which fractured his leg, he used oaths and blas- phemies while the surgeon was setting the broken limb. The physician, shocked at this display of youthful profanity, pointed out to the father, that if he had a point of conscience in not teaching the child to pray, it was self-evident that Satan had no such delicate scruple in instructing him to cwr^e." — Kev. W. Adamson. 29 possible consequences. The propaganda of infi- delity and irreligion is of incessant activity; and the parent, whetlier Churchman or Dissenter, who fails to procure for his child instruction in religious truth, may be sure that he exposes him to the fatal influence of publications of a very different character. The political party who are advocating the sepa- Secu- . . , . . . larist ration of religion from secular instruction, or m teaching. other words the exclusion of religious instruction from day-schools, have assumed the name of '* Secularists." The heading of a tract which they are circulating explains their reasons for adopting this name. It is as follows: — '' The adoption of the term Secularism is iustiiied Secu- • larist by its including a large number of persons who are tract. not atheists^ and uniting them for action, which has secularism for its object, and not atheism. On this ground, and because by the adoption of a new term, a vast amount of impediment from prejudice is got rid of, the use of the name secularism is found advantageous. Harriet Martineau." This tract is circulated in company with The The Se- Secular Chronicle^ one of the recognized organs ofchroni- the secularist party. ^^^• Vol. iv. No. 23 of the Chronicle* contains the following passages : — '' Why should men bow down and w^orship a God, that never makes any sign either of recognition or answer to their supplication?" * Vol. iv. No. 23, p. 291. 30 '' Does he (the worshipper) ever get his prayers heard or answered? " " The God of the Scriptures is the one generally chosen by Christians, and is a capricious, vengeful, and cruel God at best ; one, that a man, who had grown out of the notion of piety implanted in him in his infancy, could never adore or worship. The God of the Bible is the product of an ignorant age, and would not command the devotion of any man of intelligence, if relio;ion was a matter of the heart and life, as we may sup- pose it to have been in earlier times." .... " I assert my belief that the immorality existing at the present day is only the direct and natural result of that dangerous Christian dogma of redemption and forgiveness of sin. Christianity represents vice as more pleasant than virtue, and so gives weak- minded men a bias towards what they are taught to believe is most delightful; and entertaining these mistaken notions, it is not to be wondered at that so many people drink the cup of vice to its very dregs. Christianity in no way acts as a preventa- tive to this kind of thing ; but actually encourages it by holding out to the sinner the promise of for- giveness and eternal happiness, on the condition that he will repent, and ask God for forgiveness, and it does not matter, if this is not done until the ' eleventh hour.' Even if his sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow ; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. And the black sheep — the scoundrel who was a disgrace to the name of man — will find favour in the sight of God, Q 1 and in heaven will enjoy the same felicity with saints, who throughout their lives practised self- denial, and strove to walk in the paths of virtue." Having regard to the considerations, which have Mistake been mentioned, many persons may be surprised which that the Education Act assumed a character so *^® P®~ mentary unfavourable to the Church. In truth, when the Educa- Bill was brought in, a mistake prevailed as to the ^^^ ^ state of pubHc opinion concerning the introduction passed, of religion into the new schools. There was no doubt a party anxious to exclude religion alto- gether. Lord Shaftesbury showed his sense of the strength of this party^ when he gave as a reason for his admiration of Mr. Forster, "because he rescued the country from the prohibition of all religious teaching." Subsequent experience has shown that such a prohibition would have been very generally condemned. The party favourable to it were violent, but not numerous. Public opinion upon the subject was in a far healthier state than was supposed. The desire of parents that their children should be taught some religion prevailed extensively. There was a general impression that " education without religion was unworthy of the name." This mistake thus unfortunately made led to serious consequences. It induced the advo- cates of Church teaching to assume far too timid a tone. The Cowper-Temple clause was the con- sequence. It was proposed as the only means of preventing the entire exclusion of religious teaching. 32 Eeme- Since it lias become apparent under how many dis- dial mea- advantages the ElementaryEducation Act has placed sures ° . suggest- Voluntary Schools, many remedial measures have ^ * been suggested. One, to exempt from the rate those persons who are contributors to the Voluntary Schools of their district in proportion to their contributions. Another, to confer upon individual ratepayers the right of determining to what school the amount of their rates shall be paid. Another, to confer upon the body of ratepayers, or • on the Board, the right of determining what religious teaching shall be adopted in the Board School, the right being coupled with a conscience clause. Another, to vest the power of compulsion in some authority different in its constitution from a Board. It is no part of my intention to discuss these several proposals. My object has been to state grievances, which appear to me to have been created by the Act, and to make it clear that the Legislature must now interfere and apply appropriate remedies. Conclusion. General What then is the general result of the inquiry? The speeches quoted from the debates of 1870, show the intentions of Parliament in passing the Act. The aid of Government in the erection of schools, extended to the end of 1870, was in keeping with those intentions. Then we come to facts. Have those intentions been fulfilled? Are the new schools used for the purpose of supple- menting the Voluntary Schools or of supplanting result. i 33 them? It cannot be denied that a vigorous party- is straining the powers created by the Act to pro- duce effects directly contrary to those, for the attainment of which the Act was passed. Then I will ask whether Churchmen, after all the exertions of themselves and their predecessors, are now to be crippled and defeated by unfair legislation? Is religion to be the one subject, upon which distinctive teaching in public schools shall be forbidden? Voluntary Schools, erected and maintained by Charac- the piety, labours, and self-sacrifice of all ranks of yoi^u. the people in successive 2:enerations, are an institu- ^ary . ^ ^ . ^ i-iT^ii Schools. tion, at the existence of which England may rejoice and be thankful. They have sprung from an earnest desire of man to do good to his fellow- man. And the origin of that desire is the purest and holiest of Christian principles. These schools have for years sown broadcast the principles of religion, accompanied with sound secular instruc- tion, and have formed the genuine character of truth and piety^ which has made England pre- eminent among nations. Now they are the object of attack, by a party bent upon their destruction. Their danger really arises from the action of Danger Parliament, which has given to their rivals, but juntary withheld from them, the two great powers of Schools, compulsion and taxation. Is no effort to be made to preserve these schools, now, while they are still vigorous and efficient, now, when there is time to avert the disaster? Shall Churchmen be for ever 3 34 4 deprived of all share in the rate which the law compels them to pay ? Shall they still be forced to support schools of which they disapprove ? Shall parents be deprived of the most precious of their rigMs and liberties? Shall they be compelled to send their children to schools in which a religious education is hopeless? Shall our fellow subjects continue to endure all these serious evils without calling upon Parliament to interpose and remedy them? Surely every one, who is favorable to religion and religious liberty, should at once bestir himself and use every means which the Constitution has placed in his hands to vindicate his rights, the rights of parents, and the interests of children, and to secure for future generations the blessings of that religious system, which we have inherited from our forefathers. P.S. — Since this pamphlet was sent to the press, I have read in the Standard of 15th January, the following statements : — "The Birmingham Board have abolished religious instruction altogether, forbidden the reading of the Bible and the recital of the Lord's prayer, and prohibited every kind of religious teaching." " The Huddersfield Board have addressed a letter to the Education Department, inviting it to declare that the Church Schools at Moldgreen and Birchincliife are unnecessary after the erection of the Board Schools in these neighbourhoods." ^^mf, '■1^^:^y.:$-